Barack HUSSEIN Obama: Public Enemy #1

Here are 86 Constitutional Reasons to Impeach, and then IMPRISON Ob...   

They include:

Listed below are the Eighty Six Articles of Impeachment. [Excerpts.]

1. Appointment of a “shadow government” of some 35+ individuals termed “czars” who are not confirmed by the Senate and respond only to the president, yet have overarching regulatory powers – a clear violation of the separation of powers concept. Obama bypassed the Senate with many of his appointments of over 35 “czars.”

2. No congressional support for Libyan action (violation of the War Powers Act ). Obama lied to the American people when he said that there were no US troops on the ground in Libya and then later said they were only “logistical troops.” Obama violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by conducting a war against Libya without Congressional authorization.

3. Betraying of allies ( Israel and Great Britain. Obama has placed the security of our most trusted ally in the Middle East, Israel, in danger while increasing funding to the Palestinian Authority (Fatah, just another Islamic terrorist group) whilst they have enjoined a reconciliation pact with long-standing terrorist group Hamas and the disclosure of British nuclear secrets to the Russians in the Start Treaty.  Obama gave missile codes to British Trident missiles to Russia.

4. Backdoor implementation of the DREAM Act which would grant 22 million illegals amnesty. Obama passed the Dream Act through an executive order, bypassing Congress again. DREAM is: Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors

5. Telegraphing troop reductions to enemies – against the consult of his experienced field commanders – while embracing negotiations with our enemy, the Taliban, and recognizing another, the Muslim Brotherhood.

6. Betrayal of Arizona. Obama brought a federal lawsuit against a sovereign state, Arizona, seeking to protect its citizens from this threat of mass illegal immigration

7. Obama’s Failure to enforce U.S. law, the Defense of Marriage Act. He’s stripped America of its moral base by his support for homosexuality and the attack on marriage between a man and a women Obama allows the DOJ to refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

8. Support of an inept and incompetent attorney general who has failed to prosecute voter intimidation cases (New Black Panther Party), initiated a dangerous gun-smuggling program (Operation Fast and Furious) – which resulted in deaths to one of our own law enforcement agents. Obama allowed Operation Fast and Furious to occur, which allowed hundreds of Mexican nationals and Border Agent Brian Terry to be murdered with illegal arms given out by the ATF and DOJ.

9. Increasing the regulatory burden on American business through bypassing the legislative process with his executive branch agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

10. Failure to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration, termed as “repel invasions” in our United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 and Article 4, Section 4. Obama has failed to defend US soil in Arizona as Mexican troops bring illegals and drugs into the USA, crossing the border doing so. This is a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.      

Those are but the first 10 of the 86!

http://patriotaction.net/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A6366647&xgs=1&xg

HOLD ON, DOMA WASN’T TOTALLY THROWN OUT:

HERE’S THE PROVISION THAT COULD LEAD TO ANOTHER GAY MARRIAGE BATTLE

  The Supreme Court’s historic rulings on gay marriage have people on both sides of the debate responding strongly. As TheBlaze previously reported, the majority of justices struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning — and subsequently also threw out the contentious Prop 8 appeal (read that decision here). As for DOMA, there may be some confusion surrounding what, exactly, was included in the original 1996 law and which parts of the legislation that was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton have been axed.   To begin, the portion of the DOMA law that was ruled against in United States v. Windsor is a provision that denies benefits to legally-married gay couples. Same-sex couples, under federal law, will now, as a result of the ruling, be considered “married.” But before today, under Sec. 7 of the law, marriage was explicitly confined to unions between men and women.   CONTINUED:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PORTION OF DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, THROWS OUT PROP 8 APPEAL

THE BLAZE
June 26, 2013 10:09 am

This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned for updates.


The Supreme Court has struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning (read the ruling here) and subsequently also threw out the contentious Prop 8 appeal (read that decision here).

The portion of the DOMA law that has been ruled against is a provision that denies benefits to legally-married gay couples. Gay couples, under federal law, will now be considered “married.” And in California, same-sex marriages will be able to potentially resume. The rulings do not impact gay marriage rights in the 38 states where it is currently not legal on the books.

The DOMA vote was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for himself and the liberals on the court. He wrote that DOMA is a violation of “basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.” On a more intriguing note, the argument that DOMA infringed on states rights to define marriage was also noted.

Read the DOMA ruling, below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-contentious-part-of-doma/

Morning Bell: Make Your Voice Heard for Marriage

March 18, 2013

Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. All Americans, especially conservatives, should respect this crucial institution of civil society. This is why 41 states and the federal government affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But these laws are on the line. Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in cases that challenge the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8. The Court should uphold these laws and respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy.

Next Tuesday, March 26, as the Supreme Court hears these cases, thousands will come to our nation’s capital to March for Marriage.

Watch a special invitation from Heritage President-elect Jim DeMint:

Make your voice heard in support of marriage between a man and a woman—and urge the Court to respect your constitutional authority. We don’t need an activist Court creating a Roe v. Wade on marriage.


Last Thursday, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Senator DeMint highlighted the importance of marriage for America and limited government, and stressed the unity of social and fiscal conservatism:

We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity, and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.


In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases. The Supreme Court should uphold these laws. It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.

We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them. We cannot.

Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand. They’re natural allies.   Perhaps you heard the news on Friday that Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) announced he now supports redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. You can read the Heritage response here. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) responded by reiterating support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As we’ve explained, marriage matters for America and conservatism. Meanwhile, a broad and diverse array of scholars has filed more than 50 amicus briefs defending marriage at the Supreme Court.

And as Bill Beach and I show, we can craft policy that benefits all Americans without redefining marriage at all. Sometimes it’s as simple as repealing a bad tax.

We are only now beginning to have a national conversation about marriage. The people of France are already having this debate in their country. The Supreme Court cases provide a unique window of opportunity to explain what marriage is and why it matters. And all Americans need to be equipped for this conversation.

Working with the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Family Research Council, Heritage has produced a short pamphlet making the case for marriage in everyday language. It helps you articulate what your heart knows. And it walks you through the most frequently asked questions—the things you’re likely to hear from neighbors and friends. You can read and download the pamphlet online.

To better understand what is at stake, check out these resources. Last week Heritage published a new Backgrounder: “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.” With my co-authors Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis, we’ve filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on the consequences of redefining marriage. We’ve also just published a book making the case for marriage: What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

Americans and their elected officials have constitutional authority to make marriage policy. When Americans hear the case for marriage as the union of a man and a woman and its importance to children and limited government, by and large they support it and stand for this timeless institution. All Americans, especially conservatives, should make the case for marriage. And the Supreme Court should respect our constitutional authority to do so.


MORE:  http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/15/morning-bell-why-we-dont-need-universal-preschool/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=

Senate May Take Up Repeal of ‘Defense of Marriage’ Act

Now that President Obama has out and out stated his support for gay marriage, lots of other Democratic officeholders are coming out of the closet as supportive of various planks in the gay rights agenda. The most recent such person to begin batting for that team is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who announced today that the Senate may take up a bill that would repeal the “Defense of Marriage Act” – one of the landmark pieces of legislation from the Clinton era, and a much loathed one among gay activists.

CONTINUED:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/senate-may-take-up-repeal-of-defense-of-marriage-act/

Elena Kagan Opposes Defense Of Marriage Act

Obama Administration to Expand Family Medical Leave Act to Gay and Lesbian Employees

Posted By Eve Zibel On June 22, 2010 @ 4:32 pm In "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Family Medical Leave

7 Comments

The Labor Department is poised to announce new regulations this week that order U.S. employers to give gay employees equal treatment under the law, allowing those workers unpaid time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Critics say the Obama administration is going too far. “They're trying to redefine marriage and family by these arbitrary policies with no debate by congress, no public discussion about it," says Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family.

Gay rights activists, who strongly supported President Obama’s campaign, wish the administration would go further. “It's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one," says Brian Moulton of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

The announcement comes as the president declares June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, with an event Tuesday night at the White House to celebrate it. But even as some are ready to fete the occasion, the president is already creating a new firestorm, with his recent Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations which referenced families that include “two mothers” and “two fathers,” respectively, a move conservatives criticized and called “divisive.” Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said the president “was just trying to be inclusive of all sorts of families.”

But at an event celebrating Father’s Day on Monday, Obama talked, as he has before, about how he missed having both a father and a mother present while growing up. "He [Obama’s father] left my family when I was two years old. And while I was lucky to have a wonderful mother and loving grandparents who poured everything they had into me and my sister, I still felt the weight of that absence. It's something that leaves a hole in a child's life that no government can fill,” Obama said.

President Obama has said he does not support same-sex marriage, but Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family says the latest effort by the Labor Department is a unilateral move by the Obama White House designed to eventually bypass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

“This is just one more example of where the Obama administration is really bypassing the defense of marriage act that defines marriage as one man and one woman,” Earll told Fox News.

Moulton of HRC, a group working on behalf of the LGBT community, says the latest move by the administration is a step in the right direction, toward perhaps an eventual repeal of DOMA. “Certainly it's not medical leave to take care of a partner, it's not repealing the defense of marriage act, it's a small step but it's an important one.”

Meanwhile, it’s not just the Family Medical Leave Act the Obama administration is handling that pertains to the LGBT community. The White House is also focused on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – something the president said he would work on in his State of the Union address earlier this year.

“We would like to see it happen sooner, I think we keep moving along a pace and the Pentagon will finish its review and we are hopeful and confident president is going to move toward that certification as soon as possible,” says Moulton.

Critics feel that the military’s policy on gay service members will be one more step toward a further erosion of the Defense of Marriage Act. “The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will set the stage for the federal government to have to recognize same sex relationships of identified gays and lesbians in the military," says Earll.

While candidate Obama was popular with the gay and lesbian community for saying he would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he began to run into trouble with gay and lesbian organizations once in office. In October of last year, the President had to once again affirm his pledge of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell at an annual dinner after months of what the community called stalling tactics.

"We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie, " Obama said at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner in Washington on October 10, 2009."So, I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's my commitment to you." That statement, at the time, was met with applause from those in the room.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Row 2, Seat 4: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/
URL to article: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/22/obama-administration-to-expand-family-medical-leave-act-to-gay-and-lesbian-employees/