Time To Impeach Obama

[nChrist]

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

It's Time To Open Impeachment File

Posted: June 26, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Yes, yes, I know. An impeachment investigation will never be started while Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House. The good news is that this obstacle to impeachment will likely be removed by January.

It goes without saying that the impeachment process should never be a political weapon used to pursue partisan political advantage. But neither should an impeachment investigation be obstructed for political reasons.

Impeachment is a constitutional remedy to be used for serious offenses identified in the Constitution. So, we must ask this question: Has Barack Obama crossed the line that separates political differences from the serious offenses that warrant impeachment?

The Constitution's provisions for impeachment and removal are not aimed solely at the office of president. Article II, Section 4, stipulates that "the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

I believe there is a growing body of evidence of impeachable offenses sufficient to warrant a formal impeachment resolution in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate.

It is instructive that the founders listed only two specific crimes justifying impeachment – bribery and treason. The accusations of bribery against this president are now numerous and growing, and by themselves deserve an independent investigation under supervision of a bipartisan committee of the House of Representatives. In Pennsylvania and Colorado, candidates for the U.S. Senate were offered federal appointments in exchange for dropping out of their respective races. On their face, those actions are attempted bribery and warrant a thorough investigation.

There are also presidential actions that may stray into the category of high crimes and misdemeanors. Only this past week we have witnessed a United States senator tell his constituents that the president, in an Oval Office conversation, refused a direct request to enforce the Constitution's guarantee of federal protection against foreign invasion. Obama wants a legislative "deal" in exchange for acting to secure the southwest border.

Let's ponder the meaning of that news item and ask if this falls into the category of normal political "horse trading." The president of the United States, in brazen defiance of his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, refuses to faithfully execute the laws of the United States unless he gets amnesty legislation to benefit another 15 to 20 million illegal aliens. The principal beneficiary of that amnesty would be a foreign country, Mexico, not the United States.

Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution guarantees each state protection against foreign invasion. The governor of Arizona and three other governors have formally requested 6,000 National Guard troops to help protect against the foreign invasion now under way, an invasion supported, encouraged and assisted by the government of Mexico. President Obama says – no, I will not fulfill that constitutional duty unless I get something in return.

Seven United States senators have written President Obama to ask him not to use his executive powers for parole and delayed departure to grant de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. If he does use this power, which was clearly intended by Congress as an administrative remedy to be used in individual cases, he will be violating the spirit of the separation of powers and usurping legislative authority over immigration law.

In foreign affairs, this president has shown a cavalier disregard for the security interests of the United States. In Afghanistan, he has insisted on a fixed timetable for withdrawal of U.S. military forces – against the strenuous objections of his military advisers. He thereby gave the enemy a timetable for their victory and the return of terrorist training bases in that country.

Obama has refused to allow anyone in his government to use the term "radical Islam" to describe the enemy who has declared war on this country. To what purpose? If you cannot identify your enemy, that can only serve to hinder the prosecution of that war and undermine the sovereignty and security of the United States.

But perhaps Obama's most serious offense against the Constitution's limitations and obligations is his war against the Constitution itself. He does not adhere to the oath he took to defend the Constitution because he does not respect the Constitution.

It may be that these actions do not yet support or prove a case for impeachment. But considering Obama's drive for expansion of his executive powers and his disregard for clear constitutional duties, it clearly is time for Congress to open an investigation.

Citizens and patriots who love the Constitution and the liberties it protects have already started their own impeachment files to chronicle Obama's high crimes and misdemeanors, beginning with the overt crime of bribery. Whether or not the crime of treason will be added to that file remains to be seen. But the question is being asked, and the answer may not be pretty.

[nChrist]

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
by Pat Boone

Corrupter in chief: A modern fairy tale

Posted: June 26, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Gather round, kiddies. … Uncle Pat wants to tell you a crazy fairy tale before he tucks you in, OK? I hope it won't keep you from going to sleep, though.

Once upon a time, not long ago really, there was a beautiful, shining, prosperous land, a country that was the envy of the world. The people in this land were good, hardworking and happy people. They loved their families and looked for ways to help their neighbors, whenever they were in some kind of need or trouble.

Because it was a naturally fruitful land, and because the people worked hard, they prospered. They grew so much food of all kinds that they supplied other countries that weren't so fruitful and prosperous. They were a sharing and generous people who often took on the problems of other countries when they really didn't need to – they were just generous that way.

And oh, my – the inventions they came up with! The telephone, the automobile, airplanes, television and radio, computers and the Internet! On and on, the people had the freedom to invent and share and sell their products to just about everybody else in the world!

You know what really made them so different, and so happy, for over 200 years? It was a blueprint, a plan for living, that the early settlers in the land created – they called it the Constitution. This blueprint provided a way for the people to govern themselves, without a king or a dictator, to make their own rules through elected representatives and for every citizen to have an equal right to pursue happiness. No other country had a blueprint like this – it was truly a marvel, and most of the ideas for it came out of the Holy Bible.

And so it was for so very long that most everybody else wanted to be like this country and its people.

But, like in most fairy tales, there were some bad guys. Some lived in other countries where they ruled everything, and even wanted to take over the good land. So there were some wars, but the good country managed to win and even share their ideas of freedom with the countries they'd been fighting. And the people were happy.

But not all the people.

Some thought they could come up with a better blueprint than that old Constitution. They wanted to change it, really to change everything. Instead of giving everybody an equal chance at happiness, they wanted the government to give all the people whatever seemed necessary to make them happy. Of course, that meant that all the citizens would have to pay for all that somehow, and the government would have to handle all the money and benefits, but they didn't talk about that very much.

No, these "changers" used words like "new order," "social justice," "progress" and just plain "liberal." The good-hearted people of this wonderful land liked the sound of those words, because they described good things. But how they would ever pay for all that – and that a different kind of controlling government would be necessary – was hardly discussed. In fact, the "changers" didn't want that part of the new blueprint discussed.

It wasn't freedom. It wasn't liberty. It wasn't even equal. It was a plan for the government, in the hands of a few, to determine what the people could have, and do, and how much they could keep from what they earned in their jobs. And this was not what the good citizens wanted, at all!

But one day, somehow, a man became the head guy of the land. He was elected by barely a majority of the people, because he was different, and charming, and he used all those good words. Sadly, the people didn't really investigate the man or his background, and they didn't realize he had no experience that prepared him to be their leader.

Before they really knew what was happening, this new "Changer in Chief" was appointing all sorts of suspicious men and women to help him run the government. These were "changers" from way back, people who had always wanted to change or throw out the old Constitution, and who wanted to make the good country into something totally different – with enlightened ones like themselves in control.

As the people began to complain, the "change team" forced all kinds of new rules on them; it signed their names to trillion-dollar checks they had no way to pay off; it took over businesses and fired the executives; it winked at millions of people flooding over the border illegally, even demanding that they be paid minimum wages for work they might do. The change team created new laws that made it hard for working people and small businesses to survive.

The Chief Changer declared to the world the good land was no longer "a Christian nation" – while he openly sought the friendship of people who hated the good land, while criticizing and offending its steadfast friend, Israel.

As the people frantically tried to resist all this "change," they checked into the background of the chief – only to find out he might not even have been eligible to be chief, according to the old Constitution. Which of course might partly explain why he wanted to "change" that blueprint. And also why he spent millions to keep all his early records secret and hidden from the people.

And then serious problems arose, in which the country really needed a capable leader, a man with integrity, good judgment and experience. Floods, uncontrolled oil spills, a broken economy, wars and terrorist attacks, as well as 14 million border invaders, all called for everything this Changer was not.

He was commander in chief of the armed forces, with no experience whatsoever in anything military. The good country – the original "God Country" – was on the brink of bankruptcy, defeat and disaster.

How had this happened?

How? The people weren't paying attention. They were too trusting in people who used "good words." They liked the idea of "change." And so they got a Corruptor in Chief.

How all this turned out will have to wait for our next bedtime story, kids. Sleep tight.

[nChrist]

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

How do you spell incompetence?
By Henry Lamb

Posted: June 26, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"O" is his logo, with dramatic red and blue swirls that are supposed to imply some sort of connection to the nation over which he now presides. After observing more than a year of performance, it is clear that his connection to his Muslim roots is far greater than his appreciation of the U.S. Constitution.

"B" is his background, rich with influence from Marxists and loony leftists who guided his early years and followed him through his initial training in Chicago thugocracy. Now that he is in Washington, he has selected an incredible team of Marxist sympathizers and leftists to advise his every move.

"A" is the arrogance that exudes from his every movement. It appears that he believes he was endowed by his Creator with not only the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but also with total infallibility of thought, word or deed.

"M" is the Messiah complex that compelled him to stand before a German audience and declare, "… I am a citizen of the world" and that allows school children to sing his praises: "Mmm, mmm, mmm – Barack Hussein Obama." Watch the indoctrination of "Obama Scholars."

"A" is the attitude that is always condescending. When he speaks, everything is about "Me, my, and I." He thinks his opponents are either stupid people who "cling to their guns and religion," or are one exercise away from being domestic terrorists.

How do you spell incompetence?

Obama said he would post bills on the Internet for five days before he signed them. He lied.

Obama said his stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8 percent. He was badly mistaken.

Obama said his would be the most transparent, open administration in history. Hahahahahaha!

Obama swore he would "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Instead, he created a health-care law that requires citizens to purchase a product; there is no constitutional authority for Congress or the president to impose such a requirement on its citizens.

Obama's incompetence is most graphically revealed by his handling of the tragedy in the gulf. Eager to appear to be in control, nine days after the accident (April 29), he mentioned the oil leak for the first time, saying he had ordered Secretary Salazar to complete a report within 30 days.

His first visit to the area was May 2, when he tried to convince the nation that he had been in charge of the entire operation since day one. Once Obama became aware that the gulf event was a problem, he tried to get in front of it by appearing to be in control. Actually, he was competing with BP officials for TV face-time to convey the appearance of being in control.

Actually, he was grasping for ideas. On May 21, his friends at the Center for American Progress, a George Soros-funded think tank, suggested that he name a "Point Person" to coordinate the government's action. Obama complied within a few days.

On May 26, the same people told Obama to demand that BP set up an enormous fund to cover future obligations. It didn't matter to his friends at the think tank, or to Obama, that the president does not have the authority to demand such a thing from a private corporation. It didn't matter that BP had already accepted full responsibility for damages and had already set up a claims process.

To gain the appearance of being in control, Obama summoned BP officials to the White House so that he could claim to have forced the corporation to obey his command. This is not competence; this is childishness.

On March 10, 2009, BP applied for a permit to drill the Deepwater Horizon well. The application was approved on April 9. The environmental review, however, required by the National Environmental Policy Act was "categorically excluded." This means that the Obama administration knew everything there was to know about BP's drilling plan, and approved it. After the plan was approved and the permit issued, BP could take no action outside the plan without additional government approval. Therefore, Obama's administration knew, or should have known, in advance, every decision that resulted in the April 20, 2010, explosion. Still, Obama blamed Bush. This is not competence; this is childishness.

If, as he claims, Obama has been in charge of the cleanup since day one, requiring BP to get his administration's permission before taking any action, then the failure of all the efforts to stop the flow of oil must be laid at Obama's doorstep. The failure to prevent the oil from reaching the wetlands and beaches must also be laid at Obama's feet.

OBAMA clearly spells incompetence throughout the administration and the programs it has tried to impose. This incompetence can be contained, somewhat, on Nov. 2, and completely erased in 2012.

[nChrist]

WorldNetDaily

It's not a conspiracy – it's right out in the open
By Patrice Lewis

Posted: June 26, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

As you can imagine, as a WND columnist I get e-mails from all kinds of people, including those vocal individuals or groups who have their own personal theories about where we're heading. Martial law, one-world government, TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) … you name it, I've heard it. Collectively these are known as conspiracy theories.

What is a conspiracy theory? The dictionary defines it as "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."

Most conspiracy theories spring from a deep distrust of government and, by extension, of the official explanations offered by the government of historical events. "Usually, government is the entity engaging in the conspiracy and the ensuing cover-up, and the individuals who proffer these theories tend to be anti-government, at least to some degree," notes SkepticWiki. Conspiracy theories span decades and even centuries. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, chemtrails, Roswell, the assassination of Kennedy, Hitler's suicide, the assassination of Lincoln, all the way back to the existence of Christ … all have had conspiracy theories surrounding them.

And, as with proving a negative, conspiracy theories can be very hard to disprove.

So when I hear the latest conspiracy theories surrounding recent news events (the BP oil spill, Arizona immigration reform), I'm inclined to dismiss them as yet more rantings from obsessed people with an ax to grind, who claim to have inside knowledge of yet another grand plan to round us all up into concentration camps and gas us.

These obsessed individuals take a sequence of events and embroider it with "if this is true, then therefore this will happen" scenarios that fit with their personal fixation. They only hear the evidence they want to hear, then lavishly embellish it with their own interpretation and just a tinge of hope that what they believe will actually come to pass (so they can say "I told you so").

Conspiracy theories arise when people feel helpless against the destructive tide of events that shape our world. Conspiracies don't arise around joyous events, only malevolent. Theorists believe there must be a reason something happened; it can't have a meaningless, random, accidental or natural cause.

When you think about it, conspiracy theories are easy to understand. They are an attempt by the powerless to make sense out of senseless things, usually by blaming the powerful and elite.

So far there's only one conspiracy theory to which I'm willing to lend an ear. Or, to put it another way, only one theory fits nicely into my pre-existing suspicions. And that is the theory that our country is on the path to destruction.

Why else would the government continue to spend billions – trillions – of stimulus dollars it doesn't have despite evidence that stimulus programs don't work? Why else would it take over the health-care system (against the will of the people) in an attempt to "improve" it despite evidence from other countries that socialized medicine results in rationed services and skyrocketing costs? Why else is cap-and-trade being pushed in the wake of the BP oil disaster, despite projections that show it will raise our taxes catastrophically and bankrupt our already depressed nation?

Yet even this theory fails to stand up under scrutiny. The people planning or implementing these things are not thinking about the destruction of our country per se. Nobody is a villain in their own eyes. They're all doing what they think is right and correct within the bounds of their own vision.

In other words, the "conspiracy" to destroy our country is actually nothing more than the natural tendency for government to grow bigger and more powerful.

Everyone wants more. More funding, a more important title, more staff working under them. Nobody goes into the office in the morning and asks himself, "Gee, I wonder how I can reduce my funding, cut my staff and have a less prestigious job title?" But unlike the private sector (where you get bigger and more powerful by working harder and providing products or services that people want), government bureaucrats achieve their goals by creating more rules and regulations and taxes to get more funding, more staff and more prestige.

I do not believe there are a bunch of guys in black robes sitting around secretly planning on how to enslave us under a one-world government. The bigger and grander and more long-lasting a conspiracy, the less likely it will succeed because people can't keep secrets. Someone will blab.

Besides, there doesn't have to be a secret grand plan to bring about the downfall of this nation. It will happen all by itself, right out in the open. Greed (corporate and individual), avarice (wanting something at the expense of someone else) and apathy (the idiot box) will accomplish everything the conspiracy theorists attribute to an evil Master Plan. The massive growth of the government in total opposition to the vision of our Founding Fathers (the old "fearful master" thing) will accomplish the destruction of our country quite neatly. No preplanning necessary.

Since the dawn of civilization, nations have been born, grown too large and arrogant, and died. There was no conspiracy. It's unfortunately quite normal. Our Founding Fathers knew this very well, and that's why they built in the checks and balances they did. Unsurprisingly, politicians have done their best to erode and bypass and ignore those checks and balances ever since. There's no conspiracy. It's predictable. It's right out in the open.

But here's the thing: In the end, it doesn't matter if our current events are part of a grand and secret conspiracy or not. It doesn't matter if it's pre-planned or just a natural chain of events. It doesn't matter if the Bilderberg Group is in cahoots with Obama to bring about a one-world government, or if it's just a series of greedy politicians and bankers messing us up. It's immaterial.

The important thing is, we still have to fight it.

[nChrist]

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Obama's on the verge of outright dictatorship
By Alan Keyes

Posted: June 25, 2010

1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Throughout his political career, Obama has consistently declared his view that the Constitution's purposeful restraint of government power is obsolete. Since the outset of his occupation of the White House, he and his faction have signaled their intent to circumvent, undermine or simply set aside the authority of the U.S. Constitution. Both here and in postings on my blog I have repeatedly had occasion to remark upon the design for despotism that has been evident in their actions.

Now "eight Republican senators … are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to 'unilaterally' issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws." This represents the decisive step beyond derelict law enforcement. Not content merely to ignore the laws the legislature has properly and constitutionally made, Obama signals the intention to undertake unilateral executive action that alters the clear terms and intention of the established laws, entirely without the constitutionally determined consent of the people. This will be a blatant and presumptuous usurpation of legislative power. This is not just dereliction, it is lawless tyranny. It is outright dictatorship.

Constitutionally exercised, the executive power represents the force of law. Once divorced, however, from constitutional provisions for ascertaining the consent of the people, it asserts instead the law of force, the unjust rule that might makes right. In effect, just laws fall silent, and all that speaks are the government's instruments of force and intimidation, imposing rules that have no more warrant of lawfulness than the command of a terrorist over those he holds, by threat of violence, hostage to his will. The forces under the authority of the presidency become in that case a weapon, loaded and cocked, held to the head of the American people.

Cicero famously observed "Inter arma enim silent leges," "under arms the laws fall silent." For some time now, executive dereliction has effectively silenced what U.S. immigration laws have to say about the status and treatment of those who take up residence in the United States in violation of their provisions. If the Obama faction implements the reported plan to impose amnesty by executive fiat, the illegal immigrants' violation of the laws will in effect be defended and maintained by the executive forces of the U.S. government. Those forces will be arrayed against state law-enforcement agencies, such as those in Arizona, that continue to respect the provisions of established law. Hence, just as Cicero's dictum would lead us to expect, Obama's move to silence the immigration laws through dictatorial abuse of executive power will produce an incipient state of armed conflict between forces acting in conformity with constitutionally established law and U.S. government forces intending unlawfully to impose unilateral executive rule, which is to say, unconstitutional dictatorship.

Though purblind politicos will pretend not to see them, this offensive move has ominous implications for the survival of peace, justice and liberty in the United States, especially if it is successfully carried out. Thereafter, the basis for U.S. government action will no longer be what the laws say, but rather which laws are silent; or which parts of which laws the executive will allow to be heard. The basis for civil peace will no longer be respect for the laws, but submission to unlawful dictatorship. If today the dictator mutes the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to violate them with impunity, then tomorrow what will keep him from muting the laws against murder, extortion, theft or arson so that they may be violated with impunity by people acting as his vindictive agents of repression? By warrant of his executive fiat, will they be allowed to assassinate, intimidate, despoil or destroy the opponents of the lawless tyranny he seeks to impose in place of law?

Under the cloak of compassion for hapless illegals, the Obama faction seeks to establish the practical basis for ruthlessly imposing its will upon us all. Once that has been achieved, the threat of silencing some existing laws will be used to intimidate hapless legislators into making whatever new laws are dictated to them by the whims and purposes of America's new iteration of the age-old regime of tyranny.

It's clear that the reported consideration of this dictatorial maneuver is already intended as such a threat. Given that fact, the Obama faction's reported plan for fiat amnesty for illegals signals the commencement of the last stage in their consolidation of socialist dictatorship. While they still have the opportunity to do so, the people who oppose this surrender of American sovereignty and liberty must raise a hue and cry like none the nation has seen before. By all reasonable and peaceful means they must communicate and confirm their determination to remove from the seats of legislative power every vestige of the party that thus sponsors the rise of an American dictator.

And when their resolve to do so produces indications of an electoral tidal wave certain to sweep the Obama faction from control of the U.S. Congress in the elections this November, they will have to pray – pray to the God who made and still may keep us free; pray that the likely failure of their schemes of usurpation does not lead the desperate tyrants of the Obama faction to implement their reported plan to silence the laws in order in some way to silence the sovereign voice of the people, as we tell them to surrender the constitutional power they have disgracefully schemed to overthrow.

For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.

[Soldier4Christ]

There is an obama resignation letter drive in the works that Congressman John Boehner's office has confirmed that Rep. Boehner would present the Obama resignation petitions to the House.

More information on this and a copy of the letter can be seen at:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/john-boehner-willing-to-present-obama.html

With obama's ego I doubt that this will do anything more than let him know there are people that are upset with him and why as well as to let him know who they are.

[nChrist]

There is an obama resignation letter drive in the works that Congressman John Boehner's office has confirmed that Rep. Boehner would present the Obama resignation petitions to the House.

More information on this and a copy of the letter can be seen at:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/john-boehner-willing-to-present-obama.html

With obama's ego I doubt that this will do anything more than let him know there are people that are upset with him and why as well as to let him know who they are.

Thanks for the information!

It's past time for this. I've signed so many petitions that Obama would already know that I'm against his socialist/communist/fascist agenda. So I'm not worried about him finding out that I oppose his actions and will try to stop his agenda. It's time for freedom loving politicians at D.C. to stand up - however many there are. I know that my own representatives are totally against this administration's agenda, and they aren't bashful about their opposition. Those who aid and abet the Obama agenda need to be either in prison or out on their rears - or both.

[eschator83]

I agree 99%--it seems clear he must be impeached.  But I would hope that a close vote might warn him, and encourage him to finish his term more prudently.

[nChrist]

I agree 99%--it seems clear he must be impeached.  But I would hope that a close vote might warn him, and encourage him to finish his term more prudently.

At this point, I personally think that the only way to get Obama's attention would be to put him out of office, in jail, or both. I would opt for both.

[Soldier4Christ]

At this point, I personally think that the only way to get Obama's attention would be to put him out of office, in jail, or both. I would opt for both.

Amen! His statements and his actions are proving that he has no intention of changing his agenda.

[David_james]

I know a quick way of getting rid of obama. 

[nChrist]

I know a quick way of getting rid of obama. 

Hello Brother David,

What might that be other than showing the world his real birth certificate?   

[David_james]

I'll leave it to your imagination. 

[Kristi Ann]

I been Saying this for Years to Impeach Obama-Shame!!  I have been telling Everyone not to Trust in Obama, but, TRUST in Jesus Christ! Because Only Jesus Can SAVE anyone!!