About that Obama impeachment idea…

from The Orange County Register
August 31st, 2010, 11:15 am ·
30 Comments ·
 posted by Mark Landsbaum


 
     Go figure. We ask a simple question and generate lots of discussion on the blog. So, on the issue of whether President Obama should be impeached, some visitors to the blog have been thoughtful and reasonable, and then there are those others. 
     But the thoughtful-reasonable ones point out that impeachment isn’t intended to correct bad choices at the ballot box. It involves “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term we suspect this generation was largely unaware of until Bill Clinton came along in the White House, but which some of us recall from the days when Richard Nixon called it home.
     We, for the record, absolutely agree. Impeachment of a president should be done not to undo a bad election’s consequences, but when there are demonstrable “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
     On that score, we offer up just one view on how to understand such a term. You can find it here. And here is an excerpt:
     “An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge… It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs… He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.”
     “Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied.”
     Fascinating stuff. Any way, there’s even a book out in the past week that discusses this very issue. Go figure (again). It’s by David Limbaugh and you can find it here. Here’s a bit about it:
     “Limbaugh issues a damning indictment of President Barack Obama for encroaching upon and stripping us of our individual and sovereign rights. Laying out his case like he would a criminal complaint, Limbaugh presents the evidence—count-by-count—against Obama”
     So, whattaya say? (Please keep in mind, we’re merely asking, not advocating – at least at the moment:

to read original article and comments

Could Obama be impeached over Sestak?

Is it possible that Obama could be impeached on as simple and almost mundane an issue as offering a bribe(a la Chicago-style politics) to a DEMOCRATIC senator-elect? Maybe. Nixon was brought up up on charges for covering up an break-in to get political information on his opponents. Clinton was impeached for lying. He could be. As the cliche goes, time will tell.  -----lee


There are serious implications to an alleged White House bribe to Democratic Senator-elect Joe Sestak.
Posted on May 28, 2010, at 7:04 AM

 
http://theweek.com/article/index/203500/could-obama-be-impeached-over-sestak

The case for impeachment: Obama's socialist takeover must be stopped

The World Tribune thought it was worth the trouble to rerun this article last week (Nov. l8th), and we heartily concur. ...rng

from worldtribune.com

by Jeffery T. Kuhner

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

He is slowly — piece by painful piece — erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there — yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above — one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was — and remains — opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson — taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists — evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews — have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims — much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life — beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" — granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.

As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims — no matter how much they cry for justice — are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.

to continue article

Documented: Grounds for impeachment 'This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless ... '

I thought I had read and heard all the arguments for Obama's impeachment. There are still more valid arguments and they can be considered under the general category of negligence. But read the book and get more facts and make your own decision. In my own estimation, he's as guilty as sin. ----lee

Posted: August 23, 2010

9:04 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


     Lying, bribing, subverting election laws, payoffs, aiding the nation's enemies, seeking the abrogation of the U.S. Constitution – which of these does not fall under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required in the nation's founding documents for the removal of a sitting president, asks a new special report.
     "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America" by Steven Baldwin covers all of these issues and more in making its arguments.
     "This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless the people exercise their precious remaining liberties and stand and demand that their elected representatives impeach this president before further mortal damage is inflicted upon America," the report concludes.
     The author explains that the Founding Fathers enshrined the impeachment clause into the United States Constitution because they feared that a president intent on subverting the very principles upon which the American experiment was built would someday rise to power.
     Get the details, in "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America"
     "Despite all the checks and balances and obstacles they put in place, the Founders knew a determined cabal could still gain control of all three branches of government and wield this consolidation of power to dismantle our cherished constitutional principles, and eradicate the freedoms that generations of Americans sacrificed their lives to preserve," he writes.
     "Make no mistake: That day is now upon us."
     In "The Case for Impeachment," Baldwin, a senior research fellow at the Western Journalism Center, says the issue of impeachment "is no longer a laughing matter."
     "With the economy continuing to implode, the coming collapse of the dollar, high unemployment rates, the government takeover of entire industries, the administration's weak and naive response to the worldwide jihadist threat, and the ongoing frontal assault on our Judeo-Christian heritage, the impeachment option is one that can no longer be ignored," he finds.
     Impeachment, after all, is based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," an "old English common law phrase which, in the 1600s, meant negligence, abuse of power, and abuse of trust," the report says.
     "Not only has the Obama administration promoted dangerous and unsustainable policies, but it has also engaged in corrupt and illegal activities such as bribery, a crime the Founders specifically cited as an impeachable offense. Moreover, this report details numerous instances of Obama lying to the American people, a pattern which clearly indicates a character defect that in itself endangers America. Given this, we believe impeachment is necessary for the future survival of America," says the report.
    
    Among the factors Americans should consider:

    Obama's violations of federal campaign and ethics laws, including the offers from his administration to Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, who reported he was offered a high-ranking government job to drop his opposition in the Pennsylvania Senate primary to sitting Sen. Arlen Specter.
     Obama's effort "to persuade the [Illinois] governor to fill the vacated Senate seat with his longtime adviser Valerie Jarrett."
     Suggestions from Obama's own Federal Election Commission documentation that he got at least $33.8 million for his campaign from disallowed foreign contributions, including 520 contributions from interests in Iran as well as $30,000 from the Hamas-controlled Gaza area.
     Obama's administration decision to drop a case that prosecutors already had won against "black nationalist thugs" who were seen on video apparently intimidating voters during the 2008 election.
     Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, after he exposed corruption linked to one of Obama's buddies, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.
     The president's system of rewarding supporters has come under question. The report confirms more than 70 individuals who raised $50,000 or more for Obama "have been rewarded with ambassadorships or high ranking jobs."
     The report documents how Obama's actions even may have endangered Americans by "treating the war on terrorism as a criminal matter and downplaying the war on terrorism."
     "This attitude has manifested itself in a number of ways: Obama's casual attitude may have encouraged domestic terrorist attacks, such as the November 5, 2009, Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan that left thirteen American military personnel dead."
     His Department of Homeland Security also has "described veterans and other law-abiding Americans [as] 'rightwing extremists,'" the report says.
     Further, the report explains how the U.S. State Department gave a grant to the Al-Quds television network, owned by the terrorist group Hamas, and invited them to the U.S. to produce a propaganda film.

to continue article
  

Why Obama Will Be Impeached

One can only hope that the paranoid delusions of the left will, just this once, come true....rng

by Alex Balk on October 13th, 2010


A prediction that President Obama will be impeached if Republicans take the House: "Once Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and the like collectively decide that this or that incident represents an intolerable abuse of power by the Obama administration, the conservative base will go from supporting impeachment to demanding it. At that point, the acquiescence of the House GOP would become inevitable. Since Obama took office, whatever willingness the party establishment had to resist the impulses of its base has been submerged beneath a wave of right-wing primary challenges."

to read original article


http://www.theawl.com/2010/10/why-obama-will-be-impeached

Obama Must be Impeached: He’s Either Incompetent, or Purposely Failing

Interestingly, all the arguments made for his impeachment, just get more relevant with each passing week....rng
By Kelly O'Connell  Sunday, July 18, 2010 

     Is there a single American who secretly thinks Obama’s up to the task of the presidency? Or, does anyone believe Barack does not take bad situations and worsen them to magnify his power? These are rhetorical questions, of course. The only way Barack is an acceptable president is if you’re an opponent of America’s greatest achievements. 
     Therefore, if you support Obama it means you want to revolutionize the US. But no democratic country knowingly elects leaders to debase their country, give away power, bankrupt the treasury, incorporate socialism, dissolve constitutional rights, cripple capitalism, and menace every citizen with reckless policies. That would be ridiculous and anti-American. Barack has done all these things. Therefore, he must be impeached.
     Obama’s habit of casually blaming all problems on the sins of his predecessor recalls a quote by Joseph Conrad, “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.” Similarly, Barack has revealed enough willful stupidity, ignorance, and crafty sabotage to explain every lingering crisis in America; he no longer need invoke the Devil Bush.
     Probably most persons presently believe the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can’t be impeached for anything he has done. Those persons would be wrong. According to a recent book, “The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,” by Michael J. Gerhardt, impeachment is ultimately a political question which cannot be framed off a simple criminal analysis. This essay offers a brief overview of the federal impeachment process and proposes an analysis of Obama’s actions which place them into the impeachable category.

I. General Impeachment Process

     Impeachment, according to the ABA website: “Is a process, authorized by the Constitution, to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office. “
     The standard route that an impeachment follows is well-established. Here is a brief explanation from the Legal Information Institute:

The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, “all civil officers,” includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

to continue article

Judge gives green light to Obamacare lawsuits

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 14, 2010 04:54 PM

     Three cheers. There’s a long road ahead, but the first obstacle has been overcome. Florida judge Roger Vinson ruled this afternoon that 20 lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate can continue:

     ABC News’ Ariane de Vogue reports: In a blow to the Obama administration, a federal judge in Florida today issued a ruling allowing parts of a lawsuit by 20 states challenging the recently passed health care legislation to proceed.

     The two parts of the law that will proceed to trial are expansion of Medicaid and the individual mandate that requires qualifying individuals to obtain health insurance by 2014.

     Of all the challenges to the health care law, this is one of the most interesting because of the numbers of states that have signed on. At issue today were mostly procedural issues not the core constitutional questions. The office of Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida who issued today’s ruling, said the trial is scheduled to start in early December. You can find the order and analysis here.

     Constitutional law scholar Randy Barnett weighs in on the significance of the Florida ruling as well as a similar ruling in Virginia:

     In denying the government’s motion to dismiss the challenge to the individual health insurance mandate, Judge Vinson ruled that “the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action.” This is because of the unprecedented nature of the government’s claim of power. As Judge Vinson explained, all previous commerce clause cases involved the regulation of “voluntary undertaking[s]” or activity. But “in this case we are dealing with something very different. The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake.”

     This decision now join’s District Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling in Virginia refusing to dismiss the challenge to the individual mandate. In both Virginia and Florida we now move to a decision on the merits. Given how well both judges understood the constitutional novelty of imposing economic mandates on the people, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic that they will find the individual insurance mandate to be unconstitutional. But, however the district courts rule on this case, their reception of the arguments made by the state attorneys general foretell that the ultimate decision will be made by the U.S. Supreme Court.

     Judge Vinson derides the “Alice in Wonderland” reasoning of the Obamacare mandate’s defenders.

to read original article

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/14/judge-gives-green-light-to-obamacare-lawsuits/

O'Reilly: Obama Could Face Impeachment If He Pardons Illegals

from newsmax.com

Saturday, 26 Jun 2010 12:54 PM

By Chris Wessling

(This article is a bit dated, but the issue is rearing it's ugly head again in the lame duck session....rng)

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.”

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that at least 10.8 million illegal immigrants are living in the United States.

During his 2008 campaign, Obama promised pro-immigration and Hispanic groups that he would make an amnesty program a top priority. But such a plan has taken a back seat in favor of other Obama legislative initiatives, including healthcare and financial regulation reform.

to continue article

Impeach Obama YouTube Music Video

Music to impeach Obama.----lee

For more...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYZpZn4ERbQ

Will Republicans now impeach Obama? (Is that a serious question?)

Despite their attempts to trivialize the issue, the grounds and necessity for impeaching Obama are crystal clear.  It this pretender is not impeached, then the impeachment clauses are useless window dressing, which is no doubt fine with the ruling elite. rng---

From the Christian Science Monitor
Nov. 3, 2010
by Gloria Goodale

Impeach President Obama! Repeal “Obamacare!” UFOs have landed!  Ok, that last one is made up (pretty sure…), but the first two are rattling around the rhetoricsphere of election night speechifying, even showing up on news shows and media blogs that cover the conversation on an election night.

The first one took flight through the blogosphere after MSNBC’s Ed Schultz posed the hypothetical question to the soon-to-be House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio – who, incidentally, was not on the show. Would he pledge to take impeachment of President Obama “off the table,” Mr. Schultz asked rhetorically. This was picked up and replayed by the conservative blog, mediate.com.

On the second question, CBS News’ “Campaign 2010: Election Night," Katie Couric interviewed Republican Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, who told her: “In January, I hope that we’re able to put a repeal bill on the floor right away.”

Are these serious intentions or political theater? The latter, says John Hart, professor of communication at Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu. It’s the kind of partisan rhetoric designed for the party faithful and geared towards an emotional, not a rational response, he adds.

"Election night winners get to indulge in this kind of flight of fancy, preaching to their choir at a big moment,” he says.

But it is not really meant for the sober light of day. Rather, he says, “extreme rhetoric like this can begin to set extreme boundaries for actual moves down the line.”

For instance, while a total repeal of the massive health-care bill is not in the cards, such comments can prime the conversational pump for something far less extreme, such as amending provisions, Mr. Hart says.

to continue article

The Question Everyone is Asking: Who gets the first subpoena?

from americanthinker.com

Ed Lasky

November 03, 2010  

     There are many reasons to celebrate the Republican takeover of the People's House this morning. One of them will be the ability of Republicans to pull away the curtain and see what the Obama team has really been up to as it bullied Americans over the last two years.

     Congressman Darrell Issa will be very busy as head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, holding hearings and calling in federal officials to testify about a wide variety of actions: the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case being among them. The BP Spill, as the Daily Beast points out, may also be target for Issa:

     Issa, for his part, has put out a detailed list of the top priorities he believes Democrats have stifled. At the top is the federal response to the Deepwater Horizon drilling disaster and the subsequent oil spill. At the time, Issa accused the White House of putting image over policy in its response, hammering the administration for dispatching a political aide to the scene. A larger investigation would reopen a wound for the White House, which fought off constant criticism during the episode.

To read more...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/the_question_everyone_is_askin.html

GOP sweep revives talk of impeachment Left-leaning pundit warns House will investigate Obama's birthplace

Make 'em sweat guys. ------lee

Posted: November 03, 2010

12:44 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

     Talk of impeachment has been revived as the GOP moves into the majority in the U.S. House, with a left-leaning commentator warning that the House even could investigate Barack Obama's birthplace.

It's not the first time impeachment has been raised as a possibility, but this time the warning comes from Ed Schultz of MSNBC, who appeared outraged at the possibility to GOP would be in leadership in the House.
His comments:
     "This is, as I've said all along on this program, about power and not governing," Schultz said. "House Republicans are promising what, subpoenas? They may even be launching an investigation into the president's birthplace. It'll be a rebirth of the birthers.
"They might go so far as to try to impeach President Obama," he said.
     WND reported when other commentators suggested that impeachment may not be all that bad. Jonathan Chait at The New Republic predicted that the House would impeach Obama with a majority in the House, but he wouldn't be removed from office because that would demand 67 votes in the Senate.
     "Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won't do it right away. And they won't succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office," Chait wrote.
     His prediction stirred an immediate furor among nay-sayers, even though Chait is far from the first to broach the subject.
     In the public forum section of Chait's column, "Ironyroad" wrote, "They'll buy themselves a race war. People aren't going to take it lying down, because they'll know it's because Obama's skin tone isn't to their taste, not because of high crimes and misdemeanors."
     In his explanation of why he believes an impeachment could be forthcoming, Chait says the reason itself actually won't matter.
     "Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense," Chait wrote.
     "As it happens, should Republicans win control of the House, Issa would bring his hair-trigger finger to the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Sestak pseudo-scandal disappeared because there was no process to drive the story forward. Had Issa been running the Oversight Committee, it would have been the subject of hearings and subpoenas," he explained.
     WND reported earlier when Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, who served in Vietnam and commanded the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground during his long military career, suggested Congress should simply hand Obama an ultimatum.
     "Action should be taken by the Senate and should be taken by the House," he said. "They should serve notice on him and say, 'Mr. President, we love you but we want to tell you something. You're under a cloud of suspicion. We can't continue running this country with you in charge under this cloud. Now either you clear it up or you resign from office.'"
     He was answering questions on Stan Solomon's "Talk to Solomon" show:

To read more...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=223553

The Case for Impeachment of President Barack Obama

Unfortunately, no mention is made in this article about securing our borders and obtaining lawful government for the suffering people of Arizona.  The chance of impeaching a President for prosecuting a war are nil.  More sensible to get him for failing to protect our borders-a much more popular issue.  rng....


from lewrockwell.com
by David Lindorff

Recently by David Lindorff: Turkey in Afghanistan: Obama Sneaks into Kabul to Beg Karzai to Clean Up His Act

Back in 2005–06, I wrote a book, The Case for Impeachment, in which I made the argument that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as other key figures in the Bush/Cheney administration – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – should be impeached for war crimes, as well as crimes against the Constitution of the United States.

These days, when I mention the book’s title, people sometimes ask, half in jest, whether I’m referring to the current president, Barack Obama.

Sadly, it is time to say, just 14 months into the current term of this new president, that yes, this president, and some of his subordinates, are also guilty of impeachable crimes – including many of the same ones committed by Bush and Cheney.

Let’s start with the war in Afghanistan, which Obama has taken full ownership of with an escalation that will bring the number of US troops in that country (not counting mercenaries hired by the Pentagon and CIA) to 100,000 by this August.

The president has authorized the use of Predator drone aircraft for a program of bombing conducted against Pakistan which has illegally expanded the Afghan War into another country without any authorization from Congress. These pilotless drones are known to kill far more innocent bystanders than enemy targets, making them fundamentally illegal on principle as weapons. Furthermore, this wave of attacks in Pakistan is a war of aggression against another nation if the word “war” is to have any meaning at all, and as such it is illegal under the UN Charter. Indeed initiating a war of aggression against a country which does not pose an immediate threat to the invader is described in the Charter and in the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter as the gravest of all war crimes.

The president, as commander in chief, has also, in collusion with Attorney Eric Holder, blocked any prosecution of those who authorized and perpetrated torture against captives in the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, and the so-called War on Terror – notably Federal Appeals Court Judge Jay Baybee, and Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo, who as Justice Department attorneys authored the legal briefs justifying torture – and has in fact continued to permit the application of torture against captives. All of this is in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which as a signed set of treaties, are part of the law of the United States. Under those treaties, failure on the part of those up the chain of command to halt or to punish those who commit torture are themselves guilty of the crime of torture.

As commander in chief, President Obama has also overseen a strategy in Afghanistan of expanded attacks on civilians in Afghanistan. As in Iraq under the Bush administration, this current phase of the war in Afghanistan is seeing more civilians killed than enemy combatants, because of the widespread use of weapons like helicopter gunships, aerial bombardment, fragmentation bombs, etc., as well as a tactic of night raids on housing compounds where insurgents are suspected of hiding – raids that frequently lead to the deaths of many women and children and innocent men. It is significant that even the recent execution-style slaying of nine students, aged 11–18, by US-led forces, has not led to an investigation or prosecution of a individual. Rather, the incident is being covered up and ignored, with the clear acquiescence of the White House and the leadership at the Pentagon.

It is also widely believed that under the command of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is known to have directed a large-scale death-squad operation in Iraq before moving to his current position, a similar death-squad campaign of assassination is being conducted now in Afghanistan – a campaign that like the notorious Phoenix Program in the 1960s in Vietnam, is almost certainly resulting in the deaths of many innocent Afghans.
to read original article

Impeach Obama petition

• An interesting side question, if he's not really the presdient (ineligible) can he be impeached?  I think the answer would be yes.   rng---
• 
  
• from thepetitionsite.com
• Target: The citizens of the United States of America
• Sponsored by: quinnchristine@att.net

To: The US Congress and The Supreme Court: Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC 20543.

We the Citizens, signed below, of the United States of America, hereby request that President Barack Hussein Obama II, be Impeached from office and a Impeachment election be prepared. Based on the following unanswered questions and concerns of the American people:

1. Voter irregularities around the country, during the 2008 Presidential Election, involving ACORN and illegal voter registration.

2. The questionable funding and television sponsorship of Obama which unfairly presented the facts between each candidate.

3. Barack Hussein Obama II actual birth place.

to continue article and sign petition

National security = border security

from washingtontimes.com

4:30 a.m., Thursday, June 12, 2008

     The open borders of the United States amount to a national security exposure. This is a fact that cannot be debated.

     One has only to look at the number of foreign nationals attempting to illegally enter the U.S. through Mexico over the last several years.

     Since 2005, the Department of Homeland Security reports that more than 331,000 people from countries other than Mexico have been apprehended trying to cross the Southern land border. These individuals came from virtually every country in the world, including some with whom we have an adversarial relationship, such as Communist China, Iran and North Korea.

     These apprehensions as well as the approximate 3.1 million border arrests over the same period are the result of a U.S.-Mexico border that has been left wide open and largely unprotected against illegal entry. This vulnerability continues to be exploited by migrants and smugglers everyday and, until our borders are secure, we must anticipate that terrorists may eventually try entering the U.S. the same way.

     In 2005, when testifying before Congress, then-Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security James Loy confirmed the seriousness of this threat. According to Mr. Loy, "Al Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons." He also added that intelligence "strongly suggests" terrorists have considered entering the United States through Mexico.

     That same year, while visiting Mexico City, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "We are quite aware that terrorists will try very hard" to use the border with Mexico to enter the United States. Miss Rice also acknowledged the fact that terrorists will continue trying to infiltrate the United States this way, and thus "we need to make certain that we keep working on this issue." I could not agree more. The threat created by our open borders, as well as many of the other problems that are attributable to illegal immigration, will only intensify until this exposure is closed.

     While we have made some progress in recent years toward creating a more enforceable border, we still have a lot of work left to do. Moving forward, we must continue strengthening security through manpower, technology and infrastructure, including the most reliable and effective enforcement tool so far: border security fencing.

     Much like many other areas of the border today, the land corridor that once existed between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, Calif., was for many years considered to be the most prolific and dangerous smuggling route in the nation. It was not until I wrote into law the construction of a double border fence that the drug smugglers and armed gangs lost control of this corridor and conditions on both sides of the border started to improve.

     Since construction of the San Diego border fence started in 1996, the smuggling of people and narcotics in this area has decreased by more than 90 percent. Violent crime is down by 53 percent, according to FBI statistics, and vehicle drug drive-throughs have been eliminated altogether. There are also significantly fewer apprehensions in the San Diego sector due to fewer crossing attempts.

     In Yuma, Ariz., where almost 30 miles of fencing has been completed to date, there have been similar results. In 2006, before the start of fence construction, there were 119,000 apprehensions in this sector. By the next year, once fence construction started, there were 81,000 fewer arrests.

Story Continues →