Impeach and Convict Obama

Prelude

  • This is directed to Megyn Kelly, Jay Sekulow, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mark Levin, Bill O’Reilly, the entire 113th Congress, and ALL other public figures who present themselves as Protectors and Champions of TRUTH.    

America NEEDS you NOW.

  • He has committed numerous offenses against our Constitution and our Citizens; all requiring Impeachment and Conviction
  • It is the Duty and Responsibility of the 113th Congress to Impeach and Convict
  • As Officers of our Courts, ALL Lawyers are “Oathed” to    “….support the Constitution of  the United States….”               Admission to the Bar              Michigan Oath
  • IF you , each or collectively, fail in your duty to Impeach and Convict or to support Impeachment and Conviction the only remaining remedy will be the Citizens.

Outline

Below are sections that deal with

  • His Impeachable Offenses… the Charges….
    • They are not detailed but they are documented.
    • His Motives and Means.
    • His Duties and Responsibilities
    • What YOU must DO

The Charges

By virtue of his Oath Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Impeachable under our Constitution. Some of his offenses may also qualify as Criminal. I am not a Lawyer so cannot make those judgments.

Here is a partial list of events that surround the charges

  • Failure to prosecute Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation
  • Fast and Furious and the death of Brian Terry
  • Politically arranged firing of Government Whistleblowers  - Gerald Walpin
  • The Benghazi Tragedy
  • IRS abuse of our constitution… and hiding behind the 5th to avoid revealing criminal activity
  • NSA spying
  • Illegal tapping of Reporters telephones
  • BRIBERY (political pork BRIBERY) to buy Congressional votes to pass obamacare.
  • LYING to America….”If you like……………..you can keep…………. PERIOD. Reference
  • Covering his lie with an illegal, unconstitutional swindle that directs Insurance Cos to break the law.

I have not detailed the charges. Congressional staffers can do their part by developing the details. In case they can’t find a way to get started, here are some “Starter Links”.

The bottom line is that there are more than plenty of documentable, Unconstitutional , Illegal, actions by BHO that demand Impeachment.

I call on the 113th Congress to do their duty or become accessories, accomplices, aiders, and abettors of these many illegal, Impeachable offenses.

Motives and Means

The MEANS are easiest to describe;

  • He has illegally managed to gain control of our Presidency. From that vantage point his
    • Illegal Executive Orders
    • Illegal proclamations that overrun Congress ( with little or no pushback)
    • His bully blamecalling
    • Installation of communist partners into high level government positions

provide THE MEANS.

His motives are deep and complex. All of these have established BHO as one who believes America is unfair and needs to be Socialized then taken to full Communism.

  • His entire youth was spent being indoctrinated, brainwashed, into Communist ideology.
  • His reported education was at America’s dens of Socialism.. Columbia;  Cloward-Piven
  • His 20 years as a congregant of J Wright’s Black Theology Church. He lied when he said nothing rubbed off, or.... he is too intellectually challenged to be President.
  • His Chicago affiliation with terrorists(Ayres) and political thugs(Alinsky) have “refined” his hatred of America

Duties and Responsibilities

Detailed arguments about his duties and responsibilities are in Appendix A.

In summary, the BUCK stops at BHO. He IS responsible for his own lies and illegal actions. But he is also responsible and accountable for all his subordinates and their illegal acts.

(Holder, Sebellius, Reid, Pelosi, etc)

Beyond the illegal acts are his FAILURES TO ACT.

Can anyone provide a reference to BHO publicly or privately DEMANDING that those responsible for Fast & Furious or Benghazi-gate or the IRS scandal etc.,  be identified, prosecuted, fired and jailed?

YOUR Responsibilities

This section is simple.  To the 113th congress, your Oath to Support our Constitution demands that you support and move on Impeachment and Conviction of BHO.

To Megyn and all other officers of our Courts, we need you to help America NOW. My prior pleas to GOP leaders in the House and Senate have fallen on deaf ears. I did not even get a courtesy reply to my Faxes.

If you fail, as is true so far, then YOU TOO ARE GUILTY and need to be removed from Office.

 

Appendix A – The BUCK STOPS at BHO

This is long but instructive…………from succinct language in our Constitution to exploring the meaning and bounds of High Crimes and Misdeanors.

Impeachment

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/11/the-grounds...

Grounds

 

The legal term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is found in Article II § 4 of the U. S. Constitution; quoting the section in its entirety:

"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."

This section constitutionally secures a provision for the involuntary removal from office of the President, Vice-President, Cabinet Secretaries, other executive officers, as well as federal judges.  The reason for this provision is the observation at the Constitutional Convention by Benjamin Franklin that the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had, historically, been accomplished by assassination, and his recommendation that a proceduralized mechanism for removal would be preferable.

Treason and bribery are well understood crimes, and don't need much explanation here.  (Treason is even specifically defined in Article III § 3.)  But high crimes and misdemeanors . . . hmm, what's that?  Jerry Ford once famously asserted, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."  To the extent that the U. S. House of Representatives is the sole and final arbiter of what constitutes grounds for impeachment of a federal official, he's right; but to the extent that this is even a remotely accurate description of the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors, it's not even close.

At the Constitutional Convention, treason and bribery were readily adopted as grounds for impeachment, but two other proposals, corruption and maladministration, were rejected as being overbroad and too vague.  Instead, George Mason proposed the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors against the state," which was shortened to "high crimes and misdemeanors" and then adopted with little discussion.  The reason for the ready adoption is that the Founding Fathers were well acquainted with the concept, because it had about four centuries of precedent (since 1386) in English parliamentary use.  Explaining the grounds for impeachment in Federalist Paper # 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote (emphasis in source):

"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offences 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 the society itself."

This concept survives today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which  recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming.  These would not be prosecutable offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but in the military they are offenses which bear on the accused's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.  Thus, the emphasis in the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is the word high, because we're referring to offenses that an ordinary person, who is not serving as an elected or appointed-and-confirmed federal executive (or as a duly seated federal judge) is incapable of committing.  As an example, an ordinary person isn't going to have any official powers to misuse or abuse, but an elected executive (or one who has been appointed and duly confirmed) could face impeachment for precisely that reason.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the concept of "executive accountability" (a concept also well understood by anyone who's served in the military), which means that an executive is legally responsible, and accountable, for all of his subordinates, as well as their agents and contractors (most certainly not limited to only those over whom he has direct supervision).  The legal concept is a form of vicarious liability, and the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence."

Keep in mind that that which can be "lain at the feet" of the official in question and "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" is way too narrow an interpretation of the accountability threshold.  The executive in question is expected to be aware, at all times, of what every single one of his subordinates (and their agents and contractors) is doing - or is supposed to be doing - and must thoroughly remedy any misconduct committed by any of them as soon as he becomes aware of it.  Nor is it necessary to show that such violations occurred at the executive's instigation or with his foreknowledge, but only that, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, the executive was, or reasonably should have been, aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates.  "Plausible deniability" is void ab initio as a defense, because the executive doesn't have the luxury of ignorance.

That executive accountability would be grounds for impeachment recognizes that holding an executive or judicial office of public trust is not a right, but a privilege, and that violating the trust invested in the office forfeits the privilege of holding it.  Nor is it just presidents and federal judges who are liable under Article II § 4; there is precedent for impeaching a cabinet secretary (see: Secretary of War, William W. Belknap, impeached on March 2, 1876, and Treasury Secretary, Andrew W. Mellon, who resigned on February 12, 1932, with impeachment proceedings in progress).  And it stands to reason that executive agency/bureau directors, especially those who hold a de facto cabinet rank (such as the Director of the EPA), should count as "civil officers" for impeachment purposes.

 

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2013/5/22/182420/185

 = = = = = = =

More from above…………..

After test-marketing the excuse that the IRS selectively slow-walking non-profit applications was due to the Citizens United v. FEC decision, the Obama Administration has started floating the umbrella defense that systemic incompetence isn't the same thing as corruption, and now that they're aware of the problems, we can trust that they will exercise all due competence at getting to the bottom of this.  Someone needs to get the memo to Jay Carney that even the typically disinterested voters aren't buying the cockalayne that BHO learned about these things in the same place we did, the newspapers, and that outraged cluelessness isn't inspiring a whole lot of confidence in America's chief executive.

That a cabinet secretary (let alone the president) would have left key policy decisions to management-level subordinates, without so much as reviewing them, is a critical point of their culpability.  Quite frankly, it boggles my mind that blatant acts of malfeasance would have heretofore escaped executive scrutiny.  Specifically:

  • Who ordered the political witch hunt by the IRS against Tea Party, Pro-Israel, Pro-Life, Conservative, and Christian organizations?
  • Who ordered a stand down to the military response in Benghazi?  (General Carter Ham and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette should know the answer to this one.)
  • Further, who ordered the coverup of what really happened in Benghazi?  (12 major revisions to the "talking points" . . . seriously.)
  • Who ordered that at least 20 phone lines used by Associated Press reporters be tapped?
  • Who ordered the EPA to provide fee waivers to green-leaning groups but deny them to conservative groups?

We already know that these weren't the actions of rouge operatives who'd decided to frolic outside the scope of their duties as employees of the federal government.  More than one person is already on record that the orders came from much further up the management food chain than some random field office.  The record is already beginning to show that executive-level officers had been briefed on some of these matters as far back as two years ago.  At some point, the question must be officially asked, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"  Throwing an "acting director" - who's gone in a month anyway - under the bus isn't going to cut it.

The connect-the-dots on Benghazi is enough alone to warrant the establishment of a select committee (or perhaps the appointment of a special prosecutor) to investigate what Rand Paul has labeled "staggering abuses of power" . . . maybe another marathon filibuster is in order.

I suspect that the reason that there isn't more public outcry is, in my opinion, twofold: (1) the co-opted media is having a helluva time getting past their pro-commie bias; and (2) the "bread and circuses" American culture is more interested in what's going on with the Kardashians (or the latest "teen mom" story) than what's going on in Washington.  It's uncertain at this point whether the wiretapping scandal is going to arouse the media from their kool-aid-induced stupor, but Mr. Carney's job doesn't seem to be getting any easier.  As for the hoi polloi . . . well, judging by the "magazine" covers that I see in the grocery store checkout aisle, until either the people's house or the fourth estate start doing their jobs, don't expect the typical disinterested voter (~68.26% of the electorate) to give a damn, and more's the pity because of it.

Because, quite frankly, and for whatever my opinion is worth, not only should Barack Obama and Eric Holder be staring down the business end of impeachment charges, but so also should Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, Leon Panetta, and Lisa Jackson.  The abuse of power is just that egregious, and the example that needs to be set is just that severe.  I have no idea what the precedent is for impeaching a federal executive who's no longer in office, but a hypothetical conviction could, theoretically, bring about the punishment specified in U. S. Constitution Article I § 3, Clause 7 (specifically, permanent disqualification from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit in the federal government going forward).  That'll throw a wrench into Hillary 2016.

(And if there's any truth to the scuttlebutt that Kathleen Sebelius is using the authority of her office to conduct a shakedown of the healthcare industry in order to raise funds for the federal exchanges, then throw her in with the rest of the lot.)

 

= = = = = =

From Washington post

Contemporaneous comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as

those offences 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 the society itself.59

Comments in the state ratifying conventions also suggest that those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. Thus, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina stated that the impeachment power of the House reaches "those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust."60 Edmund Randolph said in the Virgina convention that the President may be impeached if he "misbehaves."61 He later cited the example of the President's receipt of presents or emoluments from a foreign power in violation of the constitutional prohibition of Article I, section 9. 62 In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63

Washington Post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views: 60

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by JOHN TYRRELL on November 30, 2013 at 5:17pm

ALL I CAN SAY, IS GET OFF YOUR ARSES AND MOVE IT, BEFORE THE REAL FIGHT STARTS AND BLOOD BEGINS TO FLOW. THIS PUSH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT FOR MARSHALL LAW ( NYC ) EXAMPLE.

WIND IT DOWN AND GET RID OF THE CLOWN. ALSO THE ASSOCIATES.

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage, pnj.com/opinion

ALERT ALERT

YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service