Tag Archive: Impeachment


Forbes

Obama’s Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic

President Barack Obama takes the oath of offic...

President Barack Obama takes the oath of office. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By M. Northrop Buechner

Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance.

The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.

By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.

The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?

The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).

Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class,” he has said. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.” There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.

If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe.

Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated Supreme Court Justices sitting helplessly before him during the 2010 State of the Union address—Justices who had not expected to be denounced and who were prevented by the occasion from defending themselves. Mr. Obama condemned them for restoring freedom of speech to corporations and unions.

 

Read More Here

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
******************************************************************************
By J.B. WilliamsJune 10, 2013

NewsWithViews.com

As the nation searches for the proper peaceful remedy to the crisis known as Obama, good people of good intentions often research a common subject and arrive at a different conclusion. Such has been the case on the topic of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama can be impeached.

In a WND column dated July 14, 2011 titled Why Obama Cannot be Impeached, the writer states, “Rage continues to build across this country over the obvious forged birth certificate Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, released April 27, 2011, as do calls for his impeachment. However, Obama cannot be impeached.”

The author’s position is based upon statements from Dr. Edwin Vieira, a Harvard trained attorney, who’s works are focused primarily on land rights and militias. Dr. Vieira issued his position in a 2008 piece written and released before the 2008 election, Vieira suggests that once Obama takes office via fraud, he cannot be impeached, on the basis that impeaching a usurper of the office would somehow validate his tenure in office. Is he right?

To be sure, the Obama Crisis presents a highly unusual set of circumstances, rising to the level of constitutional crisis in a number of ways. The proper peaceful remedy is indeed worthy of research and debate. Only once the people agree on a proper course of action, can action be taken… so, it is imperative that the people reach agreement on this matter.

Who is right in the debate is much less important than reaching an actionable position of agreement. The endless debate on the subject only leaves all concerned citizens paralyzed by confusion and lack of coherent direction in how to solve the crisis.

It is for this reason that I have returned to historical data on the subject of impeachment in search of the foundations for impeachment remedies found in Article II – Section IV of the U.S. Constitution.

“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.” – Article II – Section IV of the U.S. Constitution

I fully understand and even agree with the claim that Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) gained access to the Office of President via massive fraud, including identity fraud, campaign fraud and campaign finance fraud, just for starters.

I further agree that Mr. Obama’s acts during his unconstitutional and illegal seizing of the Oval Office, as well as his unconstitutional acts while in office, rise to the level of impeachable offenses, high crimes, usurpations and likely even treason.

But I do not agree that Obama/Soetoro cannot be removed from office via impeachment. In fact, I believe that Obama can only be removed from office via impeachment. Here’s the basis for my belief…

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

In Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton explained that “impeachment of the president should take place for offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”

And indeed, in Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) explained: “The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature… What are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.”

Common throughout historical references to the impeachment process is the concept that a violation or breach of public trust, or habitual disregard for the public interest is the fundamental definition of other high crimes and misdemeanors, as it relates to the Founders intended use of the impeachment clause found in Article II.

The legal debate over use of impeachment concerning immunity from criminal prosecutions of any individual occupying the Oval Office is covered quite extensively here. In conclusion, seizing the Oval Office by way of fraud, usurpations of the office, and acting in a manner at odds with public interests, constitutional authority or in breach of the public trust, are all impeachable offenses.

In Federalist Paper No. 70, Hamilton further explained: “Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious and subject to legal punishment.” – “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.”

In short, the Oval Office (not the individual occupying the office) has protections against criminal charges or prosecutions during the tenure of office, be it legitimate tenure or not.

“In 1973, the Justice Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.”Full legal reference here

This means that before any occupant of the Oval Office can be charged with or prosecuted for crimes, they must first be removed from office via impeachment, so that the business of the people can continue while the individual is being prosecuted for criminal activities.

Read Full Article Here

*******************************************************************************

Petition to Impeach Barack Hussein Obama

Fellowship of the Minds

impeach Obama

PETITION URGENTLY REQUESTING THAT  CONGRESS LAUNCH AN INDEPENDENT AND  COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ON THE  PART OF  PRESIDENT  BARACK OBAMA

To: All members of the U.S. Congress:

Whereas, President Barack Obama not only failed to aid U.S. personnel under lethal and prolonged terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, resulting in the deaths of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but also led an outrageously deceitful cover-up for weeks afterward, rivaling the Watergate-era cover-up that ended the presidency of Richard Nixon;

Whereas, the IRS under Obama – in accord with direct instructions from congressional Democrats – has engaged in the most egregious and widespread attack on conservative groups in modern history, with the knowledge of top agency officials;

Whereas, the Obama Justice Department, on top of its many first-term scandals, has spied on and harassed journalists at Fox News and the Associated Press, prompting widespread, bipartisan condemnation of the DOJ for “criminalizing journalism”;

Whereas, top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors”;

Whereas, one of these offenses – that of illegally conducting war against Libya – has been deemed by a bipartisan panel of constitutional experts to be “clearly an impeachable offense” and “gross usurpation of the war power”;

Whereas, Obama’s policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process – including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner – is unanimously deemed by experts, both liberal and conservative, as “an impeachable offense”;

Whereas, Obama’s Justice Department has presided over the disastrous “Fast and Furious” operation in which approximately 2,000 firearms were directed from U.S. gun shops across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the deaths of as many as 100 people, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry – a scandal that constitutional experts agree constitutes, at a minimum, clear grounds for impeaching Attorney General Eric Holder;

Read More Here

*******************************************************************************

Why Isn’t the Murder of an American Boy an Impeachable Offense?

by Jacob Hornberger, FFF

Article 2, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: 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.”

In 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for matters arising out of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.

If perjury and obstruction of justice constitute high crimes or misdemeanors, then doesn’t it seem rather obvious that the murder of an American citizen by the president would also constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, especially if the citizen is a child?

That’s precisely what President Obama, acting through U.S. national-security state agents, did on October 14, 2011. He murdered a 16-year-old American boy who was traveling in Yemen. The boy was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was the son of accused terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, who the CIA had assassinated two weeks before.

Why did President Obama and the CIA or the military kill Abdulrahman? The president, the CIA, and the Pentagon have all chosen to remain silent on the matter, refusing to even acknowledge that they killed the boy. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs implicitly provided the justification: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

So, there you have it: the boy was apparently killed because he was considered to have the wrong father.

But if that’s a legitimate justification for killing a child, there are obviously a lot more children at risk in this country.

Proponents of the war on terrorism argue that the killing of the teenager wasn’t really a murder but rather an assassination. But isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

After all, compare Obama’s killing of Abdulrahman with Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s killing of Orlando Letelier. Pinochet took power in 1973, during the time that the Cold War and the war on communism were being waged. Pinochet, who the U.S. national-security state had helped install into power, not only began rounding up, incarcerating, torturing, abusing, and executing suspected communists without any judicial process, he also embarked on an program to assassinate Chilean communists found overseas.

Agents of Pinochet’s counterpart to the CIA, a secret police force called DINA, planned and orchestrated the killing of Orlando Letelier on the streets of Washington, D.C. Why was Letelier targeted for death? He was a socialist, a Chilean citizen who had served in the administration of President Salvador Allende, the democratically elected Marxist president whom Pinochet, President Richard Nixon, the CIA, and the U.S. military ousted from power and replaced with Pinochet’s military dictatorship. Therefore, as part of the war on communism, Letelier was considered to be a legitimate target for assassination.

On September 21, 1976, an assassination team headed by a man named Michael Townleyexploded a bomb that the team had planted under Letelier’s car. Letelier was killed, along with his American assistant who was also in the car, 25-year-old Ronni Moffitt.

Interestingly, the U.S. Justice Department did not consider the assassination to be legitimate under the concept of war and enemy combatants, notwithstanding the fact that the Cold War and global war on communism were still being waged. The Justice Department treated the killings of Letelier and Moffitt as murders. Townley and his team were indicted and prosecuted for the murders of Letelier and Moffitt.

How is Obama’s killing of Abdulrahman any different from Pinochet’s murder of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt? In the one case, a 16-year-old boy has had his life snuffed out because he had the wrong father. In the other case, a man had his life snuffed out because he had the wrong philosophical beliefs. Given that the Letelier and Moffitt killings were treated as murders, why shouldn’t the Abdulraham killing be treated as murder too?

Read More Here

*******************************************************************************

*** Warning This Video Contains  Language  That  May Be Offensive  to Some***

*******************************************************************************

Impeach Obama

TheAmazingAtheist TheAmazingAtheist

Published on Jun 7, 2013

Obama has done something that he admitted in 2007 was unconstitutional. He should not be our president anymore.

Impeachment of U.S. President Albert Gore, Jr._REF: U.S. Supreme Ct_Case No. 00-949

Friday, May 3rd, 2013 | Posted by
 Veterans Today

 

(Editor’s note:  Only when America’s legally elected president, Al Gore, is returned to office and subjected to required impeachment proceedings, can constitutional authority in the United States be re-established.  Toward that end, all actions of the Bush (43) presidency are to be declared “null and void,” all treaties abrogated, all executive actions declared unlawful and all actions including but not limited to the establishment of the United States as a criminal empire undone.   The subsequent election of Barak Obama as president thus has no legal standing.  Gordon Duff and Lee Wanta)

Before the Supreme Court of the United States

1. IMPROPER FAILURE TO REPORT,
2. CONTINUOUS ABSENCE FROM HIS U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES,
3. REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE  ELECTORAL VOTE DECISION OF THE AMERICAN
    POPULACE MAJORITY,
4. CONTINUING VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST AND EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT DUE
    PROCESS, INCLUDING ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the U.S.A. [hereafter the U.S. Constitution, or Constitution] are jointly the contract of specific performance between the U.S. citizens as the parties on one side of the agreement, and the U.S. government, its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors as the parties on the other side of the agreement.

The duty to take care is affirmative. So is the duty faithfully to execute the office. A President must carry out the obligations of his office diligently and in good faith. The elective character and political role of a President make it difficult to define faithful exercise of his powers in the abstract. A President must make policy and exercise discretion. This discretion necessarily is broad, especially in emergency situations, but the constitutional duties of a President impose limitations on its exercise.

The “take care” duty emphasizes the responsibilty of a President for the overall conduct of the executive branch, which the Constitution vests in him alone. He must take care that the executive is so organized and operated that this duty is preformed.

The duty of a President to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability includes the duty not to abuse his powers or transgress their limits — not to violate the rights of citizens, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to act in derogation of powers vested elsewhere by the Constitution.

Please Note : – Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges of misconduct incompatible with the official position of the officeholder. This conduct falls into three broad categories:

  1. exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government;
  2. behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and
  3. employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Definition :  Political – Pertaining or relating to the policy or the administration of government, state or national …. As political theories … seek to determine or control its public policy …

(Black’s Law  6th Ed.)
****************************************************************************************************

Glenn Beck: “IMPEACH Obama”

by Right March on May 3, 2013     Print This Post Print This Post

Obama is GUILTY of High Crimes and Misdemeanors — Select Here to DEMAND Congress IMPEACH OBAMA!

ALERT: Glenn Beck has accused the White House of covering up suspects in the Boston terrorist attack — and is calling for President Barack Hussein Obama to be IMPEACHED.

And Rush Limbaugh says that Obama’s recent actions leading to the release of thousands of illegal alien criminals from our jails is an impeachable offense.

YOU READ THAT RIGHT: GLENN BECK AND RUSH LIMBAUGH ARE DEMANDING THAT OBAMA BE IMPEACHED — NOW YOU AND I NEED TO DEMAND CONGRESS TAKE ACTION TO IMPEACH OBAMA!

 

Beck has revealed that a Saudi national is a suspect in that bombing– but the media has covered it up:

“When I found out yesterday, who that guy is and what we have on him, and how our media was rooting for an American to be the killer. And how our president, this administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and everything else. How they have covered this up. How they have aided and abetted this guy is obscene, and it’s criminal. It’s out of control, and when America knows the full story on this, if she doesn’t stand up, and quite honestly, I think demand impeachment and the mass firing if not shutting down of agencies, we don’t stand a chance.”

According to Beck (see the video provided), we have reached the “beginning of the end for so much of this administration… This is much bigger than we thought.” A massive cover-up continues and Janet Napolitano, who Glenn feels will get jail time for her role in this cover-up, is going to be the first to fall. Will Barack Obama soon be impeached for his role in covering-up US government ties to terror in our own country?

This report from Beck contains much more new information, including news that unnamed and heroic federal law enforcement agents are deeply involved in investigating this cover-up, and several other news organizations have censored reports from their own reporters and investigators.

Before Glenn Beck’s report even came out, Rush Limbaugh, the nation’s highest-rated radio talk-show host, was already the latest public figure to suggest that President Obama could be impeached, over his actions related to the so-called “sequester.” This time, his regime decided to release what could end up being “a total of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons… before any budget cuts even went into effect!

On Limbaugh’s Feb. 27th show, stated:

“The president of the United States has opened up the jails. The president of the United States, because of budget cuts which have not happened yet, has released 500 or so illegal immigrants, and, by definition, of law, they are criminals… Janet ‘Big Sis’ Napolitano says that because the sequester is gonna cut 1% of their $2 billion detention budget, they will no longer be able to afford to detain as many as 30,000 criminals….

In what used to be considered, if we can remember this far back, normal, sane times, this is an impeachable offense. This is in direct violation of the oath of office. Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and the people. We’re opening the doors of prisons before the sequester has even happened, before there have even been any budget cuts. This is so childish, except the consequences are real for people that live nearby these detention centers. This is on-the-ground, hard, cold reality…

Let’s not forget, thanks to Obama’s various executive orders, ICE, the immigration people, no longer detain any illegal aliens unless they’ve been convicted of a serious crime. That’s who we’re talking about here. You have to commit a serious crime before we detain you, if you’re illegal. So this isn’t just a bunch of discriminated against freedom fighters that have been wrongly jailed finally seeing freedom at all. These really are convicted criminals that are being released.”

RUSH IS CORRECT — now we have another impeachable offense by Barack Hussein Obama!

WE HAVE TO PUT A STOP TO THIS! IT’S TIME TO IMPEACH BARACK OBAMA!

 

Of course, this comes hot on the heels of the latest impeachable offenses by President Obama — this time, this time, trying to impose gun control on our country. The American people have been successful (so far) in stopping Congress from passing new laws that would violate the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution… but now Barack Hussein Obama is threatening to impose “gun control” by Executive Order in order to BYPASS Congress!

At his press conference recently, Obama floated the possibility of using “executive action” to enact policies aimed at “reducing gun violence,” stating that, “I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president.”

In response, a U.S. Congressman is now threatening to IMPEACH OBAMA if he takes such actions against gun rights. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened that he would file articles of impeachment against President Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order:

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment… Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible. Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” He concluded by claiming that an executive order would be not just “not just an attack on the Constitution,” but also an “attack on Americans. If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” he said.

FINALLY, A CONGRESSMAN WHO GETS IT! NOW IT’S UP TO US TO KEEP PUSHING THE REST OF THEM TO IMPEACH BARACK OBAMA!

 

Apparently, more and more Americans are starting to agree with Rep. Stockman — and with YOU! A new scientific poll is out, that shows nearly HALF of Americans are now in favor of IMPEACHING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

The new WND/Wenzel Poll is stunning in its details:

  • 44% say Obama should be impeached for his campaign for amnesty for illegal aliens
  • 46% say he should be impeached launching a war in Libya
  • 43% say he should be impeached over his deciding on his own what is and is not a Congressional recess appointment
  • 51% say he should be impeached over his appointment of dozens of “czars” without any congressional oversight or approval
  • 44% say Obama should be impeached for his fight with Arizona over enforcing immigration laws
  • 40% say he should be impeached for how the Defense of Marriage Act was handled
  • 60% disagree with his drone killings of American citizens overseas
  • 47% — including 1 in 6 Democrats — rate Obama’s job performance as “poor”

We’re getting closer and closer to a majority of Americans who agree that Obama deserves to be impeached…

NOW WE NEED TO CONVINCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH OBAMA!

But what has Barack Obama already done to deserve IMPEACHMENT?

Constitution Lawyer Michael Connelly recently published a comprehensive list of what he calls his “dirty dozen of impeachable offenses” committed by President Barack Hussein Obama — “offenses that subject him to being impeached by the Congress of the United States”. He emphatically states, “President Obama has actively attempted to subvert, ignore, and completely destroy large parts of the Constitution. I believe the President of the United States is well aware of what he is doing, and it is completely intentional.”

Connelly’s “dirty dozen” list has been viewed online more than 25 MILLION TIMES — it’s time to force Congress to TAKE ACTION and IMPEACH OBAMA, once and for all!

Constitutional Attorney Connelly listshis “dirty dozen” of Obama’s impeachable offenses:

  1. President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution.
  2. The push by Pres. Obama to pass healthcare legislation in the Congress of the United States that he was fully aware was unconstitutional.
  3. Despite the fact that the United States Senate refused to pass the Cap and Trade bill, the President has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to use regulations to implement key portions of the bill, including those regulating so-called greenhouse gases… in direct defiance of the will of the people of the United States, the will of Congress, and the Constitution.
  4. Obama has placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling or exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. He has also prohibited new drilling exploration on federal land in any states in the United States… in direct defiance of several court orders issued by Federal Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans.
  5. Instead of allowing American companies to drill for oil domestically, Obama hasbetrayed the American people and authorized loans of billions of dollars to countries like Brazil and Mexico so that they can drill for oil, and then sell that oil to the United States. Obama has also refused to approve the keystone pipeline from Canada to the United States that would not only lessen our dependence on oil from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but create thousands of new jobs in the United States. The decision on the pipeline is one that belongs in the hands of the members of Congress, not the President.
  6. President Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States against illegal immigration. He has virtually declared our southern border an open border by declaring certain areas of federal land in states like Arizona as off-limits to federal, state, and local authorities… He has also ordered the border patrol not to arrest most illegal immigrants entering the country, and has stopped deportation proceedings against thousands of people in this country illegally. He is in effect instituting the so-called “dream act” bypassing the Congress of the United States which has sole authority over immigration matters.
  1. The President and his Attorney General Eric Holder have clearly violated their oath of office by joining with foreign countries such as Mexico, Bolivia, and Columbia, in lawsuits against the sovereign states of Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama to stop them from enforcing the federal immigration laws.
  2. President Obama has ordered the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations giving the federal government control of the Internet and its contents, including providing Obama with a kill switch that gives him authority to shut down the Internet if he sees fit. This is in direct violation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to control the Internet.
  3. Obama has unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress is unconstitutional, and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department defend it against lawsuits. His administration has also refused to enforce laws against voter intimidation and federal law that requires states to purge their voter registration lists of deceased individuals and those that are registered illegally. In addition, the Justice Department is refusing to allow states to enforce laws requiring proof of identity by voters at the polls. Obama has essentially said that he is the supreme ruler of the United States, and that the Congress and the Federal Judiciary are irrelevant.
  4. It has been widely reported that acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration was involved for months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners along our southern border to supply weapons to straw buyers who the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels in Mexico. The administration has, in effect, armed our enemies, and one border patrol agent has already been killed by one of these weapons. Now, Obama continues to impose gun control laws by Executive order so he will not have to deal with Congress. The administration is also refusing to cooperate with the committees in the House of Representatives that are investigating the entire operation. It is even defying Congressional subpoenas.
  5. The President of the United States is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of the Congress of the United States. The President committed members of the United States military to combat missions in a foreign country (Libya) without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on a United Nations resolution, and a resolution by the Arab League. Now, administration is taking the position that it can ignore Congress as long as it has United Nations approval or NATO approval. The White House also insisted that language be included in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that gives the President sole authority to order the military to arrest and indefinite detain American citizens on U.S. soil if the President suspects them of terrorist ties, followed almost immediately by another unconstitutional executive order titled the National Defense Resources Preparation order. It includes language that appears to give Obama the authority to declare martial law in peacetime, and take over the allocation of everything from food and fuel to transportation and health care. This violates the Constitution in a number of different ways.
  6. Since taking office the President has used executive orders, laws pushed through Congress in the dark of night, and administrative actions by his departments to nationalize and control automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and portions of the healthcare industry. This is designed to take our country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy. There is absolutely no authority in the Constitution of the United States that allows the President to do this.

This “dirty dozen” list of impeachable offenses committed by Barack Obama is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG! It’s time to GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE!

 

There are SO MANY impeachable offenses that have been committed by Barack Hussein Obama…

HERE’S THE LATEST:

It’s THE LAW that every year, the President is REQUIRED to submit a budget to Congress. He is REQUIRED BY LAW to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February.

The law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) reads: “On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year.”

So, President Obama sent his budget to Congress by February 4th… right?

WRONG. In fact, the White House is now saying Obama’s budget “will probably come out April 8.” And it’s NOT the first time this has happened — in fact, it’s the FOURTH time in five years the president has FAILED to submit a budget on time!

Obama’s NEVER late on picking his Final Four bracket teams… but he’s almost ALWAYS late on obeying the LAW and submitting a budget to Congress in time!

Do you GET that? President Barack Obama has BROKEN THE LAW over and over and over and over again — with impunity! It’s not a felony… but it IS a misdemeanor… which is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!

This is only the latest reason to impeach Obama — and we’re not the only ones calling for his impeachment!

Add another big name to the list of people who believe that Barack Hussein Obama has met the Constitutional requirement of “high crimes and midsdemeanors”, and should therefore be IMPEACHED. This time, it’s rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent:

Referring to Obama, Nugent says, “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”

He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief. It’s so diabolical…”

He called the probe into the fatal onslaught at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, “the most recent outrage” worthy of the Obama administration.

“When you’ve got the secretary of state of the United States of America who was brought in for questioning regarding the murder, the slaughter, the predictable slaughter of four American citizens in Benghazi, what kind of subhuman numbnut would not know you need security in Benghazi 24/7?” Nugent asked.

“And why does Hillary Clinton know that she’s got the backing of the president and the government overall when she has the audacity to scold those elected officials who ask proper questions. The hearings are over. Nothing [is the result]!”

 

Read More Here

****************************************************************************************************