The Latest In Conservative Direct Mail: Impeach Obama!

from tpm muckraker

Ryan J. Reilly | October 14, 2010, 1:16PM

"This might be our last chance to save freedom in America."

That's the message a piece of direct mail sent out by the National Campaign for an Impeachment Inquiry, a project of The Conservative Caucus, which is calling -- as their name would suggest -- for the impeachment of President Barack Obama.

Why you ask? Well, for one, there's "ObamaCare," which TCC brands as an effort to "control the people." Also, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro like Obama and his "march of America toward Socialism, or worse."

The flyer, obtained by TPMMuckraker, includes a "national ballot of 5,000,000 registered voters" on "Whether Congress Should Launch AnImpeachment Inquiry Into President Barack Hussein Obama's Assault On Our Constitution."

"The purpose of this survey of 5,000,000 registered voters is to show pro-freedom, pro-Constitutional members of Congress that there is broad public support for the new Congress to conduct a full Inquiry into whether President Barack Hussein Obama has kept his oath of office to faithfully 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America'," the flyer reads. Cited in the survey are Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano and Sen. Jim DeMint.

"We certainly will not get any action on Impeachment from the current Congress -- now controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid," reads the piece of direct mail. "But we should demand an Impeachment Inquiry as one of the first orders of business of the new Congress. We must begin our campaign to educate voters and mobilize public support for an Impeachment Inquiry now, before the election of the new Congress.

Here are some highlights:

• "Fidel Castro is not the only Communist dictator to applaud Obama's march of America toward Socialism, or worse. The America-hating Communist dictator of Venezuela Hugo Chavez noted in a speech that Obama is to the Left of him and Chavez's good friend, Fidel Castro. Chavez even calls President Obama 'Comrade Obama!'" (page 13).
• "ObamaCare sets up 159 new government agencies -- and builds an enormousness Soviet-style bureaucratic government administrative apparatus." (page 13)
• Obama is "refusing to enforce the law concerning homosexuals in the military." (page 16).
• "President Obama is rapidly consolidating his power and destroying our Constitutional Republic." (page 16).

So how can you stop Obama's march to towards socialism?

to complete article

Illegal Immigration: The treason lobby

     I leave you this link to remind you of the enablers who have been working well before 2006, i.e. to help Barack Obama in his attempt to reform immigration. Take note they are from both parties and their ranks will increase if there is the slightest weakness on the part of patriotic americans to avoid this monumental fight for american sovereignty. -----lee


from SmallGovTimes.com
By: William Calhoun
Submitted on: 09/24/06


EDITORIAL - An acquaintance who has worked in Washington DC for 35 years recently said to me, "A dark cloud casts its sinister shadow upon our nation's capital. And that dark cloud is the pro-immigration treason lobby."


     If anyone has not noticed, our country is under invasion. And key Democrats and Republicans are doing nothing to save it. Some of them even encourage the illegal invasion.
     Why such treason? In the 1950s when our nation was under invasion, President Eisenhower (via "Operation Wetback") responded with troops and in less than a year deported almost 1 million illegals. Yet, many of our leaders say they are unable. Rather, they are unwilling. They support something "higher" than American sovereignty; that is to say, they support liberal internationalism.
     Many Democrats and Republicans have been hypnotized by the sinister spell of liberal internationalism. Although they may disagree over a few minor points, they all support the same agenda: the weakening of states' rights, the proposition nation, "free" trade & the NAFTA superhighway, the erosion of national borders, and the expansion of unhampered and unrestricted immigration policies. They are but cronies for big business and mutinous multiculturalists, all at the expense of Middle America. And if they have their way, they will transform the US into a third-world wasteland.
     In the Democratic Party the treason lobby is headed by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Charlie Gonzalez, Nancy Pelosi, Russell Feingold, Loretta Sanchez, and John Conyers.
     In the Republican Party, the treason lobby is spearheaded by GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Arlen Specter, and Mike DeWine.
     The Constitution entrusts the protection of the US to our elected leaders, and the above backsliders have failed in their Constitutional duties.
     Already 20 million illegals have invaded the US. They plan to reclaim the Southwest and "kick every single white person out," as one Mexican recently said. They will not rest until the Southwest is theirs and all the "gringos have been eliminated." They are not Western; they are of Aztlan.
     Doubt what I say?

to finish article

On the Coming Impeachment of Barack Obama

Very interesting article on the politics of impeachment that becomes even more interesting now that the election is over.  You'll want to click on the link below and finish the entire article.  Sadly, no mention of impeaching Obama for failing to seal the borders and suing Arizona for trying to defend themselves.  As usual impeachment movements are diverted into secondary issues (eg. Monica Lewinsky) and primary issues that serve the world government agenda are sidelined.  Will the Tea Party Congress stick to the real issues?  Keep the pressure on them with your phone calls and letters, and organize your friends and their friends to do the same.  You will make a difference.---rng

Posted by Allyn
Friday, October 15, 2010 at 9:04 pm



The Republican Party, odds-on favorites to win the House of Representatives in six weeks, are looking to the future by looking back at their playbook of the 1990s past — a campaign platform long on rhetorical flourishes and short on a coherent governing strategy, talk of a government shutdown to force the President to the will of Congress, and now, as Jonathan Chait of The New Republic argues, impeachment of a President viewed as illegitimate.
     To most observers, the three planks of Republican zealotry in the 1990s are viewed as failures. The Contract With America in 1994 produced no tangible policy results; its only success was as a tool to elect Republicans to Congress, a purely political end. The government shutdown of 1995 ultimately empowered Bill Clinton; perceived at the time as weakened from the failure to pass health care reform and the Democrats’ loss of both houses of Congress in 1994, Clinton emerged from the experience as a champion of government and its role in society. The impeachment of Clinton, over his extra-marital liaison with Monica Lewinsky, was widely viewed as a partisan witchhunt over personal failings that had nothing to do with Clinton’s fitness for office.
     Why repeat these failures? To Republican elites, these three events are not considered failures. The Contract with America didn’t actually promise results, only that ten bills were brought to the floor of the House and debated — as they were. The government shutdown failed because Republican leaders — Newt Gingrich in the House and Bob Dole in the Senate — lacked the nerve to drag out the confrontation. And impeachment succeeded, even if it didn’t remove Clinton from office; impeachment forced Al Gore to run away from Clinton’s legacy of economic growth and provided an opening for George W. Bush to be a more formidable opponent in the 2000 election.

For more...

KUHNER: President's socialist takeover must be stopped

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The Washington Times

5:58 p.m., Thursday, July 22, 2010

     President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

     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.

     Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich

Story Continues 

TANCREDO: The case for impeachment Obama has violated his oath of office over immigration

Since this article was written, the House has picked up a Republican majority.  It is time to move for impeachment.  Even if it fails, it will force a public airing of all the crimes and misdemeanors of this administration.  The air needs to be cleared.---rng

By Tom Tancredo
The Washington Times
5:57 p.m., Thursday, July 22, 2010

     Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."
     I've always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.
     In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.
     For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.
     Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles. To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or "transcended" through international agreements or "norms."
     Mr. Obama's paramount goal, as he so memorably put it during his campaign in 2008, is to "fundamentally transform America." He has not proposed improving America - he is intent on changing its most essential character. The words he has chosen to describe his goals are neither the words nor the motivation of just any liberal Democratic politician. This is the utopian, or rather dystopian, reverie of a dedicated Marxist - a dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House.
     Because of the power he wields over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and even health care, his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it - all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.
     Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.
     Mr. Obama's actions, not just his words, show the threat he poses. A level of government deficit spending unheard of since World War II and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see represent an unacceptable threat to our economic security and our children's future. Mr. Obama could be the first president to guarantee that the next generation of Americans has a lower standard of living than their parents.
     Mr. Obama's most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans' desire to negotiate a "comprehensive" immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.

To continue story

Is violent revolt in our future?

Are the American people, at long last, fighting mad? At least one writer thinks so.  Read and decide for yourself.---rng


Why violent revolt lies in our future
from World Net Daily
by Larry Klayman
Posted: December 18, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 

President Ronald Reagan used to say that the scariest words in the English language are: "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Two hundred or so years earlier, our Founding Fathers had essentially the same thoughts when they declared independence from the British Crown based on its refusal to take into account the grievances of the colonies and its peoples, and instead attempted to beat them into submission.

Today, as we observe the holidays and ready ourselves for a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the New Year, in the face of continued control of the Senate and White House by the Democrats and President Barack Obama, these words and thoughts ring louder than ever. Never before in the history of our sacred nation has the "State of the Union" been worse and indeed more hostile to the needs of the American people. And both Democrats and Republicans are responsible!

I have written in earlier columns that I sincerely believe that we have entered a new revolutionary period in American history. With each passing day, I become more convinced of it. And, regrettably, I believe that we are only a year of so from violent revolt if things do not radically change "on a dime."

Here are the signs of the violent revolution to come:

First, the economy continues in a tailspin, with unemployment increasing. Families do not have the financial means, even assuming they are able to bring home a salary, to pay for their children's higher education, buy a new car, much less put good wholesome food on the dinner table. Couple this with glacial growth in the economy, our dependence on foreign capital to keep the nation afloat and the continued real-estate crisis and the picture is more than bleak. And God forbid we have another large terrorist attack or an oil field or two in the Middle East blows up – the entire world economy could easily go down for the count. People get real upset when they do not have money; plain and simple. Just ask any employer who has missed or is late on a pay period for his employees. He or she is lucky not to be lynched. Our government has not only missed several pay periods, it is taxing the populace into submission and wasting these revenues on projects and graft that return nothing but more hardship.

Get Larry Klayman's fascinating account of his battle with the powers that be: "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment"

Second, the prospect of war overseas looms large and is imminent. Thanks to the neglect of three successive administrations toward Iran, the fanatical mullahs of Tehran are on the verge of acquiring atomic weapons and undertaking in earnest their long-desired quest of worldwide Islamic rule. Because of President Obama's and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's policy of appeasement, the situation is now even more dire and will require almost certain military intervention by Israel and the Western powers to stop thepotential Holocaust that looms on the horizon.

Then there is North Korea, which already has atomic weapons and had just this week threatened a nuclear war against its southern neighbor, the United States and its allies. Of course, that's not to forget about Hugo Chavez, that communist Venezuelan despot Obama hugged and fawned over at the Summit of the Americas a couple years back. He has just acquired hundreds of missiles from Vladmir Putin's Russia. Chavez is, not coincidentally, a close ally of not only Castro's Cuba, but Iran and North Korea. These "trouble spots" are on the verge of blowing up, requiring massive U.S. resources, financial and otherwise, to address. This in turn will put even a greater strain on the American economy and our nation's military, particularly with the continuing counterproductive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our government has more than failed big time; it has lead us into an international hellhole.

But the crises domestically and internationally are not all. "Above all," it's the arrogance, indifference, incompetence, immorality, corruption and slough of our government officials and their body politic, and the media, which are destroying the country.

to continue article

The impeachment of Barack Obama [Updated]

Interestingly, the article does not mention the treason of not protecting the border, especially Arizona's as possible grounds for impeachment.   Why does everyone refuse to see the gorilla in the living room?--rng  


First, the republicans are not as smart as this guy thinks---there is a reason why the Republican party is called the called  the "stupid party"(I'll explain in later columns). Second, the Republicans will find a way to let him slowly twist in the wind rather than use the thermonuclear option---impeachment. Third, Mr. Dao simply does not understand how low an opinion the general public has of Obama health care and how deeply flawed and unconstitutional this piece of legislation is that forces judges to declare parts of it not the entire act as unconstitutional. ------lee.     

November 1, 2010 by Peter Dao

     One glaring difference between Democrats and Republicans, left and right, is that the former is trying to win a debate while the latter is aiming for political annihilation.
     The White House’s baffling message in recent days that if Republicans gain seats they’ll be more cooperative, is emblematic of that divide.
     The reality is this: impeachment, not cooperation, is on the table if the GOP takes the House. I’ve been arguing for months that the level of anger and hate on the right, stoked by millionaire radio blatherers and fueled by a well-oiled rightwing attack machine, has created a fertile atmosphere to move impeachment from the fringes to the mainstream.
     Democrats are constantly flabbergasted by Republican audacity. Republicans will say and do things that Democrats won’t; they’ll endure the initial outcry over outrageous comments to move the national discourse to the right, a process I described in a recent post:
     There is a simple formula for rightwing dominance of our national debate, even when Democrats are in charge: move the conversation as extreme right as possible, then compromise toward the far right. Negotiation 101. And it’s completely lost on Democrats. It’s no accident that in 21st century America, torture has been mainstreamed, climate denial has taken firm hold, book burning, racial dog whistles and brazen religious intolerance are part of our discourse and par for the course. This is how the right plays the game, using Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Drudge, blogs, chain emails, talk radio, etc. to shamelessly and defiantly drag the conversation as far right as possible. … Democrats run away from the left like it’s the plague while Republican run to the right like it’s nirvana. The net effect is that the media end up reporting far right positions as though they were mainstream and reporting liberal positions as though they were heinous aberrations. And you wonder why America is veering off the rails?
     Another chronic problem for Democrats is that they underestimate the American public’s responsiveness to rightwing talking points. Take this poll for example: “Likely voters in battleground districts see extremists as having a more dominant influence over the Democratic Party than they do over the GOP.”

In a word, the environment is ripe for impeachment. William Wolfrum elaborates:

     A while back, my friend Sam Antar – a former key player in the infamous and egregious “Crazy Eddie’s” fraud – told me that it was just a matter of time before Barack Obama faced impeachment charges. “With all the stimulus money going out, the Republicans will eventually find some corruption charge they think will stick,” said Antar, now a corporate whistle-blower who tends to view things from a non-partisan prism. “It’s just a matter of time.”
     In a purely Machiavellian sense, Republicans have always seemed to understand the game in ways Democrats don’t. Because while American Conservatism is an ideology with few new ideas or plans, it is also an ideology that understands that power is the only thing that really matters. And they have proven extremely adept at regaining power, regardless of past performances in governing.
     Republicans can not beat Obama at the ballot box. But you can be assured that they will do all they can so that his legacy is terribly tainted in scandal. There is just no way the GOP will allow Obama to serve out eight years and leave office with a strong record of liberal accomplishment that he can hand over to a Democratic successor. Simply put, for Republicans, Barack Obama must be destroyed and completely invalidated before his term or terms are over.
     Republicans will attempt to impeach Barack Obama. The “why” of the matter is completely insignificant. They’ll find something and work overtime to make it appear to be the Greatest Scandal Ever. It’s just a matter of time. Provided, of course, that they have the numbers.

Kevin Drum hypothesizes:

The topic here is, “What excuse will some insane tea party faction in the House use to bring impeachment charges against Barack Obama?”
     Since we’re going for style points here, I’m putting my money on a scenario in which South Carolina decides to nullify the healthcare reform law and prohibit its enforcement. Obama nevertheless directs the IRS office in Charleston to dispatch tax delinquency notices to uninsured residents. Governor Nikki Haley instructs the state police to barricade the IRS in order to prevent it from delivering outgoing mail, at which point Obama sends in Army troops to reopen the office. This is taken as a tyrannical abuse of federal power, and Rep. Joe Wilson files immediate impeachment charges. The impeachment bill passes with 220 votes — 201 from the Tea Party, 18 from the rump Republican Party, plus Bobby Bright — and is sent to the Senate. Chief Justice John Roberts presides, wearing robes decorated with the scales of justice stitched in gold lame, but Tea Partiers and Republicans eventually rally only eight Democratic supporters and the charges fail by a single vote.



UPDATE: Even if impeachment doesn’t materialize, one way to hobble Obama’s presidency is to dismantle his signature achievement:
     The question is not whether Republicans want to repeal the health-care overhaul. They do. The question is whether they’ll succeed.
     It would be very difficult, if even possible, for them to win a repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. … But that doesn’t mean Republicans are powerless. If they control even one chamber of Congress, then they’ll have at least partial command over appropriations. And the health-care law needs appropriations. The bill specifically details about 115 of them, some of which are integral to implementation of the legislation. Moreover, Republicans could get even more creative, refusing, for instance, to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to spend staff time setting up the law.
     As with full repeal, the GOP would need majorities they don’t have to pass any appropriations bills that sabotage the legislation. But unlike with full repeal, where only passing a bill would affect the Affordable Care Act, Republicans can still make their mark by simply refusing to pass any appropriations that would fund the law. And they have more than enough votes to keep any alternatives from passing.

to continue article

http://peterdaou.com/2010/11/the-impeachment-of-barack-obama/

"No Labels" tries to redefine Obama

from impeachobamacampaign.com

Posted by Ben on December 14, 2010

This author has reported extensively on the new faux centrist organization “No Labels” and its organizers’ efforts to form a new, national third party in time for the 2012 presidential elections. After its kickoff event yesterday in New York City, it is clear the group is rendering yet another service to the president: It attempts to portray Barack Obama as a centrist.

In a story today, Politico surmizes that No Labels “may inadvertently serve a stalking horse for President Barack Obama.” However, it does not seem so very inadvertent. Democratic donor Jim Torrey, who attended the event,admitted, “Of all the people in the audience, if you drilled down you wouldn’t find that many Republicans.” The few who showed up were either “former” Democrats (Mark McKinnon, Michael Bloomberg) or RINOs run herd out of the GOP by the Tea Party movement (Mike Castle, Bob Inglis).

Torrey added that Obama “aligned with the values of this organization.” He was right — and that seems to be the group’s current raison d’etre: to pretend its views are the political “center,” and coincidentally Barack Obama shares them all. Thus, whoever opposes his agenda is an extremist who must be read out of polite political society.

to continue article

Issa: 'Not a chance' of Obama impeachment under GOP House

This article illustrates the chicanery or the pig-headedness, take your pick, of the Republican establishment.  Obama has not protected our borders and actively and treasonously attacks those who do.  That is grounds for impeachment and if he isn't impeachable, why is the clause in the Constitution?---rng

from thehill.com

By Jordan Fabian - 10/22/10 07:14 AM ET

If Republicans take control of the House, there is "not a chance at this point" that they will try to impeach President Obama, a top Republican lawmaker said this week. 

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who would helm the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee if the GOP wins on Election Day, said that his party will not try to bring impeachment charges simply because it disagrees with the president. "Not a chance at this point. I don’t see it happening," Issa said when asked if there is a chance of impeachment onBloomberg's "Political Capital,"which airs over the weekend. 

"Look, disagreeing with the president — the president using his authority, maybe even misusing it — that’s not what impeachment’s for," he added. "Do we have disagreements? Yes. Do we want to see that the president strictly adheres to process? Yes."

Some Republicans, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and former Rep. Tom Tancredo — who is running for governor of Colorado as a third-party candidate — have raised the specter of impeaching Obama, largely over his stance on immigration policy. 

Tancredo originally proposed impeachment this year, and Bachmann said that should be left for Congress to decide. 

Democrats had to answer similar questions before they took control of the House in 2006. Some believed they could bring impeachment charges against then-President George W. Bush over his prosecution of the war in Iraq and his policy on warrantless wiretaps. Party leaders eventually ruled out the move.

Issa has been in the spotlight recently, outlining his plan to oversee and investigate the Obama administration if Republicans win control of the House. 

to continue article and read comments

Texan calls for jail time for enforcing Obamacare Proposal defines demanding compliance as felony with penalty of 5 years, $5,000

Posted: December 04, 2010
10:05 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Texans take their rights seriously.


     A bill that has been prefiled for the 2011 state legislative session creates penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in jail for anyone guilty of the "felony" of attempting "to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation" of Obamacare, the president's plan that effectively nationalizes the health-care decision making process.
     The plan by Texas Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, effectively would nullify the federal health care legislation in his state.
     At least, that is what the bill that "relates to federal health care legislation" says:

The federal Act:
(1) is invalid in this state;
(2) is not recognized by this state;
(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.

It provides that "a person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States in violation of this chapter."

For more .....

25 Reasons to Impeach Obama

from impeachobamacampaign.com 
on July 27, 2010
By Fred Dardick, Impeach Obama Contributor


Last week Rep. Michelle Bachmann was asked what Republicans had in mind should they retake the House of Representatives this November, she replied “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another and expose all the nonsense that is going on.”

Considering the sheer volume of illegal and impeachable offences committed by Obama and his cohorts over the past couple of years, the House will be very busy indeed.

Putting aside Obama’s inept leadership, weakening of our national defenses and transparent attempt to socialize our great nation, there are a number of more practical crimes that once investigated could lead to Obama’s impeachment and perhaps even his well deserved imprisonment.

25 Obama Crimes the House Should Investigate in 2011

1. Convicted felon and Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko’s purchase of land adjacent to Obama’s house in Hyde Park, IL. In 2006, Rezko sold a 10 foot strip of his property to Obama for $104,500, rendering the remainder of Rezko’s $625,000 investment too small to be developed and, for all intensive purposes, worthless.
2. The provision of the Obama campaign donor lists to ACORN in 2007 and 2008, more complete lists than the ones he provided to the FEC. ACORN used the lists to illegally raise money for Obama’s election from donors who had already maxed out their legally allowable contributions.
3. Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election. For more information see my CFP article How Obama Used an Army of Thugs to Steal the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination.
4. Obama’s refusal to release his long form birth certificate which would show conclusively that he is a dual citizen and therefore not constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Obama’s college records, which have also not been released, would also contain information regarding his dual citizenship status.
5. Protecting union interests over those of GM and Chrysler bond holders during bankruptcy proceedings, forcing investors to accept millions of dollars in losses in direct violation of bankruptcy laws, money to which they were legally entitled.
6. Preferential treatment given to minority and women owned car dealerships by Obama administration officials as part of the auto industry bailout program and the forced closing of a disproportionate number of rural dealerships located in areas that did not vote for Obama.
7. Unsubstantiated firing of Corporation for National and Community Service Inspector General Gerald Walpin for exposing Sacramento Mayor and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson’s misuse of an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant.
8. Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill including the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.
9. Lying to the American people by promising they could keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to, when in reality tens of millions will be forced out of their current plans.
10. Attempted bribery of Rep. Joe Sestak with job offers to get him to drop out of the Senate primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.
11. Directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emission standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama’s energy reform bill. For more information see my CFP article Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months.
12. The Obama administration’s statement that a panel of experts had agreed with their plan for a 6 month Gulf Coast drilling moratorium, when in actuality none of them had supported the measure.
13. Bullying BP to set up a $20 billion slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the oil spill, to be administered by an Obama political appointee without any judicial or congressional oversight.
14. Implementing a third oil-drilling moratorium after the first two were thrown out of court, creating a de facto Gulf Coast offshore drilling ban in opposition to two judge’s rulings.
15. Establishment of a commission to investigate the Gulf Coast oil spill that contains not one oil industry expert and whose transparent purpose is to push a partisan political agenda rather than investigate the cause of the disaster.
16. Obama’s policy of intentionally not securing our nation’s borders, in opposition to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which calls for the President to protect states from foreign invasion, in an attempt to blackmail Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In essence, Obama is holding border states and residents politically hostage during a time they are being overrun by a narco-paramilitary invasion.
17. Department of Justice illegal race based policies regarding voter fraud as exposed by former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams. This includes the dropping of voter intimidation charges against 2 Black Panthers brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Philadelphia and the stated intention by political appointees to ignore voter crimes committed by African Americans, Latinos and other minorities.
18. Department of Justice purposefully allowing some states to continue their disenfranchisement of military personnel serving overseas in direct opposition to the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which was established in response to the more than 17,000 military votes that were not counted in the 2008 election because ballots had arrived after the deadline.
19. Recess appointment of Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services without even a token attempt to put him through the Congressional nomination process, signaling that Congress’s constitutional obligation to vet presidential appointees means nothing to Obama. The same can be said of the 30+ Obama administration czars.
    
    

Why President Obama is at Risk for Impeachment Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution

     The calls for impeachment keep piling up and my gut feeling on this (besides turkey), is Obama will see an article of impeachment on his desk before next year's Christmas. Let's hope. -----lee

Mitch Biggs, Yahoo! Contributor Network

Aug 1, 2010

     In the United States, Federal Officials are exempt from a recall election. However, Article One of the Constitution does provide for impeachment. There are very compelling reasons why President Obama is at risk for impeachment. At the heart of the matter is the Oath of Office. On inauguration day, President Obama took the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

     Rather than defend, preserve and protect the Constitution, President Obama has systematically set a course to dismantle the Constitution. The real question here is if President Obama has committed perjury. During his campaign he is documented stating that he wanted to fundamentally transform the United States. His appointments to the United States Supreme Court are clear evidence of a President seeking to create a judicial body that is biased toward liberal ideology rather than constitutional law. Furthermore, the President has been documented strongly suggesting that the Constitution is an impediment for his desire to redistribute the nation's wealth. (Politico.com)

     The Oath of Office specifically calls on the President to preserve, protect and defend. Immigration reform is another example where the President has condemned the Constitution. Securing our nation's border is a national security issue. Politics have been allowed to be center stage as a bargaining chip rather than uphold the law. We are a nation of laws. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law. The Federal Government must uphold the law. More troops have been sent to clean up the oil spill than defend our porous border. Litigation with Arizona is far removed from the fundamental responsibility of our nation's security.

To continue reading...

The threat of illegal alien amnesty-by-executive order

This is from June, but if the lame duck session of Congress doesn't deliver, will Obama go this route?---rng

By Michelle Malkin 

June 23, 2010 10:07 AM

     NumbersUSA posted a letter on Monday from GOP Sen. Grassley and seven other Republican Senators challenging the White House on rumors of illegal alien-amnesty-by-executive order. The gist of it:

     We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.

     While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

     This administration has accomplished its major policy agenda items through force, fiat, and fraud. Immigration will be no different.

     More to the point, as I’ve reported many times and in-depth in my blog posts, columns, and books, open-borders activists and open-borders politicians have accomplished illegal alien amnesty-by-special order with almost no grass-roots resistance for years.

     Both the Bush and Obama administrations support non-enforcement orders on deportation.

     Both Republicans and Democrats have sponsored “special relief” bills to grant amnesty to illegal alien criminals. Remember:

How Congress gives special relief to convicted murderers, smugglers, and other alien law-breakers

By Michelle Malkin • June 11, 2007 01:00 PM

     Are you aware that deportable aliens can circumvent immigration laws with the help of your member of Congress? Are you aware that more than 50 bills have been introduced in Congress this year that would grant special, private relief to individual immigrants fighting deportation? It’s instant amnesty through special legislation. And it’s been happening for years under the radar. Past and present beneficiaries have included smugglers, illegal aliens, and now a convicted murderer wanted in his home country for engaging in terrorist activity and participating in an assassination plot that left a prime minister and dozens of his family members dead.

     Both political parties remain clueless or indifferent to the deportation abyss that affords illegal aliens countless appeals and de facto, endless amnesty.

     As I first pointed out in Invasion eight years ago, comprehensive immigration ENFORCEMENT reform won’t come from Washington until Americans outside the Beltway start doing it themselves.

The revolt is well underway.

to read original column

Executive order

This is an article explaining what an executive order is, and the history and uses of such orders. Next up, is a report regarding what the current administration might do, via executive order, to impose its legislative agenda on the country.   ------lee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     An executive order in the United States is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. Executive Orders are generally orders to staff of the executive branch and not to the citizens of the country. Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution specifically reserves all federal legislative authority to Congress, not the president. In other countries, executive edicts can serve a legislative function. Such edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council.

     Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor or at the local level by the city's Mayor. The term "Executive Orders" and the numbered list of them were created in 1907, but U.S. Presidents have issued instructions that are retroactively labeled Executive Orders since 1789, usually to guide officers and agencies of the Executive branch in managing the operations within the Federal Government itself. Executive orders can have the full force of law if they are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Other Executive Orders not authorized by Congress are claimed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution. It is these cited or perceived justifications made by a President when authoring Executive Orders that have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority and have been subject to legal proceedings even at various times throughout U.S. history concerning the legal validity or justification behind an order's issuance.

For more...