KUHNER: Obama’s impeachable war

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The Washington Times

6:39 p.m., Thursday, March 24, 2011

     President Obama has lost his legitimacy to remain in office. The Libyan war has exposed the administration’s lawlessness and rampant criminality. If Republicans and conservatives are serious about restoring constitutional government, they will demand that Mr. Obama be impeached.

     The war is going badly. The coalition is cracking; the strategic aims of the military intervention are not clear; Russia, China, India and Brazil oppose it; the Arab League is condemning the deaths of innocent Libyans caused by Operation Odyssey Dawn; and it appears that Moammar Gadhafi will succeed in clinging to power - defying the international community and humiliating the United States. Mr. Obama has called for Col. Gadhafi to step down. He has staked American prestige and power on helping bring about that end. The failure to achieve this will render America a paper tiger on the world stage. We will no longer be feared or respected.

     NATO forces launched air strikes in order to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. The goal: to prevent Col. Gadhafi’s forces from slaughtering civilians. As Gadhafi loyalists marched toward the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Mr. Obama decided to implement an American rescue mission. This mission, however, differs from previous ones in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo. The United States is not taking the lead; rather, it is following the French and British. America is no longer acting like a superpower but a poodle of Paris and London.

     Mr. Obama has engaged U.S. forces - risking precious blood and treasure - without a clear strategy for victory. He recklessly has allowed his country to be sucked into a conflict without a real national debate or consensus. His policy is shoddy, half-baked and irresponsible. It is amateur hour at the White House.

     The most disturbing aspect, however, is the intervention’s lack of constitutional and legal authority. It is an illegal war. The Constitution clearly stipulates that only Congress can authorize the use of military force. Unless American territory has been invaded or U.S. citizens have been directly attacked, the president must first ask for congressional approval before ordering any kind of military action. To do otherwise is to behave like a despot.

     That is why the Founding Fathers insisted that going to war could be sanctioned only by the people’s representatives. The most serious act of any state is to use military force - to demand that countrymen risk their lives on behalf of their nation. Hence, congressional input and approval is necessary as a fundamental check and balance against an imperial president.

     Mr. Obama claims he does not need congressional authority. His behavior reflects contempt for the rule of law and American democracy. His arbitrary will trumps legal restraints. Unless he is stopped and removed from office, we are a constitutional republic in name only.

     His blatant abuse of power is illegal, immoral and hypocritical. During the war in Iraq, then-Sen. Barack Obama criticized President George W. Bush for not asking Congress for a formal declaration of war. On Dec. 20, 2007, Mr. Obama said in a speech that the “president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

     Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery - which makes no sense.

     Moreover, what “imminent threat” does Col. Gadhafi’s regime pose to the United States? None. He is a capricious killer who rightly is reviled by most of the Libyan people. Yet it is their war, not ours. America should use military force only to protect its vital national interests.

To read more:

Kucinich: Libya action 'impeachable'

     Tomorrow, another reason for impeachment from another democrat. ---lee

     President Barack Obama should be impeached for approving air strikes against Libya, Rep. Dennis Kucinich said in an interview Monday.
     “President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,” the liberal Ohio Democrat told Raw Story. “He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.” Several other members of Congress have also chastised the Obama administration for not doing enough to sell the intervention to Congress, let alone to the American people.
     Kucinich went a bit further in his Monday remarks than he did over the weekend when, as POLITICO reported, he questioned why the U.S. strikes weren’t impeachable offenses while on a Democratic Caucus conference call.
     Obama’s decision “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense,” though he conceded in the interview that he’s unsure whether Congress would move ahead on a trial. Kucinich wanted to impeach former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney for their roles in leading the United States into war in Iraq and for their oversight of the conduct of the war, but was blocked by Democratic leadership.
     “Now, it doesn’t necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him,” he said. “That’s a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.”

For more:

Ralph Nader: Impeach Obama for Libya, Crimes

from newsmax.com

Monday, 21 Mar 2011 08:57 PM

1digg

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is calling for President Barack Obama's impeachment, saying he is responsible for war crimes in the Middle East, The Hill reports.

In an interview with the anti-war group Democracy Now!, Nader said Obama was as much a war criminal as former President George W. Bush.

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes; and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader said.

"[Bush officials] were considered war criminals by many people. Now, Barack Obama is committing the same crimes," the former presidential candidate said. "In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, he is violating international law."

Read more on Newsmax.com: Ralph Nader: Impeach Obama for Libya, Crimes

Another Liberal Calls for Obama’s Impeachment

from reddogreport.com
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2011 9:48 AM

tags: Impeachment, President Obama, Ralph Nader

by Brian O'Connor

   ShareThis

|| Once pals, Barack Obama has now unleashed the might of the US militaty on Gaddafi. ||

Articles of Impeachment.

Once the darling of the anti-war crowd,

The left is quickly turning it’s back on Barack Obama.

Many liberals are now calling for the President’s impeachment.

Including progressive stalwart Ralph Nader.

The consumer advocate and former presidential candidate said in an interview that aired Friday that Obama has committed “war crimes” on the same level as President Bush.

“Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached,” Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.

Finally, something those on the left and right can agree upon.

to read original article and comments

The $4-Per-Gallon President

     Soon to be the $5-Per-Gallon or maybe $6-Per-Gallon President. But don't forget, our President has more important things to do: like taking in the sights of Rio and filling out the NCAA basketball brackets on ESPN. ------lee

by Sarah Palin on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 4:27pm

     Is it really any surprise that oil and gas prices are surging toward the record highs we saw in 2008 just prior to the economic collapse? Despite the President’s strange assertions in his press conference last week, his Administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

     The evidence of the President’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see. The following is not even an exhaustive list:

     Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?

     But that’s just the Gulf. There’s also the question of a moratorium on the development of Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It seems the Obama Administration can’t agree with itself on whether it imposed a moratorium there or not. The White House claims that they didn’t, but their own Department of the Interior let slip that they did. To clear up this mess, Gov. Parnell decided to sue the DOI to get a solid answer because such a federal OCS drilling moratorium would violate federal law.

     Exhibit B: His 2012 budget. The President used his 2012 budget to propose the elimination of several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. Eliminating these incentives will discourage energy companies from completing exploratory projects, resulting in higher energy costs for all Americans – and not just at the pump. According to one study mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, eliminating the deduction for drilling costs “could increase natural gas prices by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet,” which would translate to “an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices.”

     Exhibit C: His anti-drilling regulatory policies. The U.S. Geological Survey found that the area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, one third of which is in Alaskan territory. That’s our next Prudhoe Bay right there. According to one industry study, allowing Royal Dutch Shell to tap these reserves in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas would create an annual average of 54,700 jobs nationwide with a $145 billion total payroll and generate an additional $193 billion a year in total revenues to local, state, and federal governments for 50 years. This would be great news if only the federal government would allow Shell to drill there. But it won’t. It’s been five years since Shell purchased the lease to develop these fields, but it’s been mired in a regulatory funk courtesy of the Obama Administration. After investing $3.5 billion in exploration programs (a significant portion of which went to ensuring responsible spill response and prevention), Shell announced last month that it has given up hope of obtaining the required permits to conduct exploratory drilling this year. That means no jobs and no billions in oil revenue from the Arctic anytime soon thanks to this Administration. Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. Right now Beltway politicos are quibbling over cutting $61 billion from our dangerously bloated $3.7 trillion budget. Allowing drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas will enrich federal coffers by $167 billion a year without raising our taxes. If we let Harry Reid keep his “cowboy poetry,” would the White House consider letting us drill?

     Taken altogether, it’s hard to deny that the Obama Administration is anti-drilling. The President may try to suggest that the rise in oil prices has nothing to do with him, but the American people won’t be fooled. Before we saw any protests in the Middle East, increased global demand led to a significant rise in oil prices; but the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.

     This was no accident. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Let’s not forget that in September 2008, candidate Obama’s Energy Secretary in-waiting said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That’s one campaign promise they’re working hard to fulfill! Last week, the British Telegraph reported that the price of petrol in the UK hit £6 a gallon – which comes to about $9.70. If you think $4 a gallon is bad now, just wait till the next crisis causes oil prices to “necessarily” skyrocket. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now.

     Hitting the American people with higher gas prices like this is essentially a hidden tax and a transfer of wealth to foreign regimes who are providing us the energy we refuse to provide for ourselves. Like inflation, higher energy prices are a hidden tax on Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. And these high gas prices will be felt in the form of higher food prices due to higher transportation costs. Energy is connected to everything in our economy. Access to affordable and secure energy is key to economic growth, which in turn is key to job growth. Energy is the building block of our economy. The President is purposely weakening that building block and weakening our country.

2012 can’t come soon enough.

to read original article 

Dem Candidate Wants to Impeach Obama

I guess it had to come sooner or later---a democrat who wants Obama impeached. It's funny, I didn't see this story before the election.  -----lee

Sadly, Ms. Rogers did not win but managed to get 30% of the vote in a 3-way race against Republican Congressman Pete Olson and Libertarian Steven Susman.  She has already announce her plans to run in 2012.  True, she's associated with Lyndon LaRouche, but Obama's associated with George Soros, so it evens out.---rng

from time.com
June 20, 2010


 South Carolina's unexpected Democratic nominee for the US Senate, mystery man Alvin Greene, says he wants to play golf with Barack Obama. But in Texas, another surprise Democratic primary winner, congressional nominee Kesha Rogers, wants to impeach the President. So while South Carolina party officials are still unsure of what to do about Greene's success at the ballot box, Texas Democrats have no such reservations — they wasted little time in casting Rogers into exile and offering no support or recognition of her campaign to win what once was Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay's old seat.
     Rogers, 33, told TIME she is a "full time political activist" in the Lyndon LaRouche Youth Movement, a recruiting arm of the LaRouche political organization that is active on many college campuses. The LYM espouses LaRouche opposition to free trade and "globalism" (the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund) and it also calls for a return to a humanist classical education, emphasizing the works of Plato and Leibnitz. On her professional looking campaign website, kesharogers.com, she touts the LaRouche political philosophy — a mix of support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the impeachment of President Obama — and calls Obama a "London and Wall Street backed puppet" whose policies will destroy the Democratic Party. During the campaign, she was photographed carrying an oversized portrait of the President with a Hitler-style moustache penciled on his lip.

to read complete article























-candidate-wants-impeach-obama

How to Help Impeach a President as a Citizen

This is a group homework project for the month.
-----lee

Why let the politicians have all the fun?  This is your chance to make their lives miserable.  Enjoy.---rng

By an eHow Contributor


The Constitution of the United States provides recourse for citizens when the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Only the House of Representatives can impeach a President, after which it is up to the Senate to decide whether to convict a President and expel him from office. There are things you can do to help impeach a President as a citizen.

.Difficulty: Challenging

Instructions

1

Identify the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President. You need to be able to enumerate these crimes in order to convince others that impeachment is reasonable.

2

Contact your United States Representative and inform him that you believe the president is guilty of those crimes. Tell him that you believe the Constitution requires him to investigate the issue and determine whether the President should be impeached. You can find out who your Representative on the United States House of Representatives website.

3

Encourage others to contact their U.S. Representatives. You can do this through any number of means, including face-to-face conversations, phone calls, e-mails or even marketing campaigns such as radio ads or websites.

4

Start a petition drive in your U.S. House District to encourage your U.S. Representative to vote for impeachment.

5

Repeat steps 2 through 4 with your Senators, should the House of Representatives vote for impeachment. You can locate your senators at the United States Senate website.

to read original article

Obama: An Incompetent Traitor?

Interesting article with wrong conclusion, although I share his view that Obama moves by design and not mistake.---rng

from politicsdaily.com

David Corn

8 months ago

     Obama is incompetent. Obama is a wimp. The bitter partisans of the right have been pushing these memes hard. It makes me wonder whether they know there's a reality beyond Fox News. True, the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has provided conservatives fodder, for perhaps the president could have done something sooner to deal with this tragedy (though who knows what would have led to a faster or better remedy). But leave it to the right -- which tends to oppose government efforts to better regulate corporations -- to hyper-ventilate about Obama's alleged culpability and lack of fortitude.

     Dick Morris, the consultant-turned-kvetch, recently provided a fine example of this:

     Conservatives are so enraged at Barack Obama's socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent, as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America's beaches not only reminds one of George W. Bush's terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter's incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.

     As for the Obama's-a-girly-man narrative, conservative writer Andrew McCarthy, in an interview with BigJournalism.com, a conservative site, declared, "Our political leadership won't come to grips with the fact that we have enemies." And during that interview -- in which McCarthy was promoting a book he had written -- the site's editor, Michael Walsh, asked, in all seriousness, if Obama is some kind of "Manchurian Muslim." Walsh went on to suggest that Obama is practically in league with "the global Islamist movement," noting that Obama and Saudi King Abdullah "share a common goal of radically transforming the West. Even though they part company on the details of what they would transform it into, they both need to topple American constitutional republicanism in order to install their utopias."

     This is head-spinning stuff: an inept president who is so dense he doesn't realize the United States has enemies but who is cleverly scheming to overthrow the U.S. government from within. It sure ain't coherent or consistent.

     Nevertheless, I am curious about what such conservatives think when they read newspaper articles -- I assume they read newspapers -- such as the one that appeared on the front page of The Washington Post on Saturday. Headlined "U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role," the story began:

    Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.

     It's well-known that the use of CIA drone attacks against al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders has expanded under Obama. (Recently al-Qaeda's No. 3 leader was reportedly killed by a CIA drone.) But there's more: the Post piece noted that Obama is making greater use of Special Operations forces in the global fight against extremists. Obama, has allowed "things that the previous administration did not," one senior military official told the paper.

to read complete article and comments

Has Huckabee Gone Birther?

Maybe we don't need to to impeach Obama-- we just need to find him ineligible. That would save everybody a lot of trouble. Let's try it.  

---------lee

from American Thinker
March 02, 2011Jack Cashill

     Up until Monday of this week, perennial presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was the bane of the so-called bithers.

     A week ago on Good Morning America, Huckabee pandered to George Stephanopoulos's ABC audience with the now standard Republic disclaimer on the Barack Obama citizenship issue.

     "I just don't think it's completely necessary for us to delve into such extraneous matters," sniffed Huckabee. "And for Republicans to even be bringing it up, I think it's a waste of energy and time."

     And then on Monday of this week, like a Bizarro-World Paul on the road to Damascus, Huckabee seems to have fallen off his horse -- head first. When he came to, alas, he was not exactly seeing the light. In fact, he was not even making sense.

     "One thing that I do know," Huckabee said of Obama on Steve Malzberg's New York radio show, "is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, (is) very different than the average American."

     As I show in my new book, Deconstructing Obama, there are holes in Obama's origins story big enough for anyone but the dipsomaniacal Barack Obama Sr. to drive a truck through.

     As big as those holes are, no one has ever tried to fill them by having Obama grow up in Kenya for the simple reason he did not.

     For Huckabee going forward -- if he still has a political career -- and for all Republicans, if asked about the citizenship issue, please answer as follows:

     "George/ David/ Chris etc--if there is ignorance" abroad, as you suggest, it is because of your collective failure to investigate the background of Barack Obama. The truth is we know more about George Washington's early years than Obama's.

     "Did you know, for instance, that young Barack and his mother spent his first year in Washington State? Did you know the little Obama family we heard so much about in his convention speeches never was? Did you know his presumed parents never lived together? So please, stop lecturing us about what we don't know and do the kind of research on Obama that you are now doing on, say, Charlie Sheen."

to read complete article and comments 

1st call for impeachment by member of Congress 'Absolutely,' Trent Franks tells blog, citing abandonment of DOMA law

Everyone: All aboard the the impeachment train!!!
----lee

Posted: March 02, 2011
8:19 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh

     A Republican congressman has told a left-leaning blog that if there is collective support, he would favor the impeachment of Barack Obama over his decision to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
     Scott Keyes of ThinkProgress.org asked U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.: "I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don't reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?" Keyes asked.

Read all about the grounds for impeachment.

     Franks replied: "If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts."
     Keyes was referring to the announcement by Holder and Obama that they no longer would fulfill their official duties to defend the law of the United States when it came to the Defense of Marriage Act.
     "While sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable," Holder explained in a statement announcing the conclusion he reached with Obama.
     Holder said he and the president believe the law is unconstitutional.
      "The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional," Holder said.
     Keyes had asked, "What recourse does Congress have? Could you, for instance, defund the Department of Justice if they don't reverse course and start to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?"
     Franks responded, "That's probably the strongest leverage that we have."
     In a followup question from Keyes, Franks said he would support "in a moment" a move to defund the agency.
     Think Progress describes itself as a "nonpartisan organization" tied to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It boasts of being named the "Best Liberal Blog" in 2006.
     Comments on the site included mostly ridicule of Republicans:
      "They have such weird priorities: they won't even investigate torture, but private relationships between consenting adults is something that gets their hackles up. I'm really surprised that impeachment hearings haven't already commenced. Must be part of the deal he got for not prosecuting war crimes."
     "Republicans are acting like cry baby Democrat union thugs now."
     "Impeach a president who shows support for the constitution? What doesn't this freak understand about equal rights for all … including rights for those HIS GOD created?"
     "The teatarded and brain dead republicans need something to make them seem busy since they don't have a freaking clue what to do with the jobs and the economy. They know guns, religion, gays, abortion, and unnecessary wars. That is it."
     But there also was a jab at Obama:
     "What other laws do you think King Obama will choose not to defend in court?"
     There was a massive negative reaction to Obama's move. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described it as an attempt by Obama to dictate his perspective to America .
     "The president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama," he said. "The president swore an oath on the Bible to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed, not to decide which laws are and which are not constitutional."
     Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said actions by government officials who were sworn faithfully to uphold the laws of the United States are "outrageous."
     "This is a federal law and the federal government, including the Obama administration and the Department of Justice, has an obligation to defend this law," he said. "This law has been attacked before and has been upheld as constitutional."
     "This is tyranny," he said.
     Judge Roy Moore, the former Supreme Court chief justice in Alabama and now chief of the Foundation for Moral Law, said his organization has filed an amicus brief in a dispute over the federal definition of marriage.
     "I'm glad we didn't elect to depend on the president to defend our law," he said. "I hope now Congress will step up and take up the battle where the president has stopped."
     He said such "arbitrary" decisions about a law's constitutionality have no place in America.
     "Basically, he's not upholding the rule of law," he said.
     A statement from Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association said, "As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he was against homosexual marriage. Many people at the time suspected he was intentionally being dishonest for political expediency, because he thought it would hurt his chances to beat John McCain if he said he was in favor of homosexual marriage. Now the truth is out. He was lying."
     Commentaries raised the issue that should the precedent stand, a subsequent president simply could say that he and his Justice Department no longer would defend Obama's signature law, Obamacare, in court.
     But it's far from the first discussion of impeachment, as WND reported
     Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, before the 2010 election, 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.
Chait wrote.

To read more ....

Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment

Huge question--If Holder defended the Defense of Marriage Act wouldn't he "throw" the case anyway?  And, wouldn't it be cool if a President did declare Roe v. Wade unconstitutional, end all federal subsidies for abortion and tell the states to prosecute at will all takers of the innocent lives of pre-birthing event children?---rng

Does Gingrich smell blood? Who knows, maybe this will be a campaign issue. But frankly, I don't trust Mr. Gingrich or his policies at all.  -----lee 

By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella

Friday, 25 Feb 2011 02:53 PM 

     In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

     Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Asked directly whether Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “I think that’s something you get to much later. But I think clearly it is a dereliction of duty. Clearly it’s a violation of his constitutional oath. Clearly it is not something that can be allowed to stand."

     (A Gingrich spokesman stressed after the interview that we are not currently in a constitutional crisis, nor was Gingrich calling for the direct impeachment of the president. His statements were meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media.)

     Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.

     Obama’s decision to forgo a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.

     Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.

     “Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

     “First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

     “Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

     

For more .....