The New Congress Will Consider Impeachment
by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
The new Congress elected in November will surprise everyone. They will seriously consider impeaching Barack Obama.
Growing under the radar of the mainstream media is a movement that is gathering momentum.
More than one million citizens have signed petitions calling on the U.S. Congress to impeach Barack Hussein Obama. Some of the soon-to-be-elected members of Congress are amongst those who have signed up, and they are not about to be cowered by establishment Republicans scared silly of the issue.
Ultimately, it comes down to a commonly shared belief amongst Tea Party activists that Barack Obama is systematically trying to hurt America. Obama, the argument goes, is not an incompetent boob in over his head. Nor is he is not some well-meaning community organizer who has seen his plans go astray.
Barack Obama is a dishonest, manipulative liar who actually is pursuing an agenda that he hopes will take America off the international leadership stage. He wants America to fail so that the vision of internationalist socialists can be realized. America is hated by the elite intellectuals of the world because we have been the single biggest roadblock to their plans to establish a one world governing system with them in charge.
Americans has consistently rejected socialism. Whether it is Hillarycare or Obamacare, Americans are speaking with a loud, clear voice against socialism.
The Left hates America because of our belief in God, our belief in rugged individualism, our belief in private property, and our belief in the right to keep and bear arms.
It is only through impeachment that the new Congress can send Barack Obama a clear and unambiguous message that he does not have carte blanche to run roughshod over America.
Impeachment is the political tool given by the Founders to correct abuse by a president. Impeachment is often misunderstood because of confusion about what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense.
Former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “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.”
The key phrase here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English common law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” essentially means bad behavior.
Here’s a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Constitution:
“High crimes and misdemeanors” entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment – treason and bribery – were not enough. He worried that other “great and dangerous offenses” might not be covered… so Mason then proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a “misdemeanor” meant “mis-demeanor,” or bad behavior.
In other words, “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not refer to a criminal act, as some would lead you to believe. Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which are gross incompetence, gross negligence, outright distasteful, or in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show “malevolence toward this country, which is unabated.”
And for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Obama would be a simple matter of “playing politics,” the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting president be a political act.
The Founding Fathers deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment.
The Obama administration qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.
Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.
Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.
Click here to sign the petition to impeach Obama now. Our nation depends on it.
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/sign-the-petition/
http://floydreports.com/?p=2163&utm_source=Floyd+Reports&utm_campaign=fdb29ae956-FR_09_17_20109_17_2010&utm_medium=email
Showing posts with label criminal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criminal. Show all posts
Friday, September 17, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
DOT Asked Contractors to Post Signs 'Solely Used to Publicize' Obama's Stimulus Law
DOT Asked Contractors to Post Signs 'Solely Used to Publicize' Obama's Stimulus Law
(In violation of Criminal Law)
Friday, August 20, 2010, By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71375
(In violation of Criminal Law)
Friday, August 20, 2010, By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71375
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Obituary-Very Interesting!
United States: Born 1776, Died 2008
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:
•Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
•Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
•Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
•Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:
•Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
•Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
•Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
•Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
'Representing' al-Qaeda
'Representing' al-Qaeda
by Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online, March 29, 2010
Does Helping Jihadists Lie, Plot, and Identify CIA Agents Demonstrate Patriotism -- or Material Support to Terrorism?
Bravely entering the lion's den -- delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, "pro bono" lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that "lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots."
Sure they are. After all, Holder explained, they "reaffirm our nation's most essential and enduring values" -- like the value we place on coming to the aid of our enemies in wartime. And let's not forget the value we place on advocating for the release of those enemies who, as night follows day, then return to the business of killing Americans. Sure, the nation somehow missed these essential and enduring values in the two-plus centuries between the Revolutionary War and the War on Terror, but hey, who's counting? ...
For The Public Good?
In reporting Holder's remarks, the press defined "pro bono" as if it meant "voluntary." Although the term describes no-fee legal work that lawyers do voluntarily, that is not what it means. "Pro bono" is short for pro bono publico, "for the public good." That is, it is supposed to reflect the public's values, not the profession's. And the two are very much out of sync.
The attorney general's pep rally occurred just as the public was getting its first glimpse of the peculiar notions of "representation" shared by several Gitmo Bar veterans. Thanks to dogged investigative work (here and here) by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn (of, respectively, Keep America Safe and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), we now know a good deal about several of these volunteer lawyers. To take just a few examples, they provided al-Qaeda detainees with a brochure that instructed them on how to claim falsely that they had been tortured; fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security and precipitated fabricated reports that prisoners had been tortured and force-fed; provided the detainees with other virulently anti-American propaganda (for example, inform ing them about the Abu Ghraib scandal, comparing U.S. military physicians to Josef Mengele, and labeling DOJ lawyers "desk torturers"); gave the enemy-combatant terrorists a hand-drawn map of Gitmo's layout, including guard towers; helped the enemy combatants communicate messages to the outside world; informed the detainees of the identities of other detainees in U.S. custody; and posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.
And that's not the worst of it -- not by a long shot. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has uncovered the Gitmo Bar's shocking effort to identify CIA interrogators. The lawyers -- from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, perversely calling themselves "the John Adams Project" -- actually had investigators stalk U.S. intelligence officers, surveilling them near their homes and photographing them with or near their loved ones. The photos were then smuggled into Gitmo and shown to top terrorists to determine whether they recognized which intelligence agents had questioned them. Interestingly, the attorney general claimed that al-Qaeda's volunteer lawyers deserve the public's "respect" because they "accept our professional responsibility to protect the rule of law." All of the above-described activities not only violated the law; they occurred in flagrant contravention of court-ordered conditions that were placed on the lawyers' access to their "clients." Evidently, violating statutes and contemptuously flouting court orders protects the rule of law in the same way that coming to the enemy's aid exhibits patriotism. That's "our values" for you. ...
Follow this link to continue reading "'Representing' al-Qaeda."
http://article.nationalreview.com/429623/representing-al-qaeda/andrew-c-mccarthy
by Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online, March 29, 2010
Does Helping Jihadists Lie, Plot, and Identify CIA Agents Demonstrate Patriotism -- or Material Support to Terrorism?
Bravely entering the lion's den -- delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, "pro bono" lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that "lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots."
Sure they are. After all, Holder explained, they "reaffirm our nation's most essential and enduring values" -- like the value we place on coming to the aid of our enemies in wartime. And let's not forget the value we place on advocating for the release of those enemies who, as night follows day, then return to the business of killing Americans. Sure, the nation somehow missed these essential and enduring values in the two-plus centuries between the Revolutionary War and the War on Terror, but hey, who's counting? ...
For The Public Good?
In reporting Holder's remarks, the press defined "pro bono" as if it meant "voluntary." Although the term describes no-fee legal work that lawyers do voluntarily, that is not what it means. "Pro bono" is short for pro bono publico, "for the public good." That is, it is supposed to reflect the public's values, not the profession's. And the two are very much out of sync.
The attorney general's pep rally occurred just as the public was getting its first glimpse of the peculiar notions of "representation" shared by several Gitmo Bar veterans. Thanks to dogged investigative work (here and here) by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn (of, respectively, Keep America Safe and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), we now know a good deal about several of these volunteer lawyers. To take just a few examples, they provided al-Qaeda detainees with a brochure that instructed them on how to claim falsely that they had been tortured; fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security and precipitated fabricated reports that prisoners had been tortured and force-fed; provided the detainees with other virulently anti-American propaganda (for example, inform ing them about the Abu Ghraib scandal, comparing U.S. military physicians to Josef Mengele, and labeling DOJ lawyers "desk torturers"); gave the enemy-combatant terrorists a hand-drawn map of Gitmo's layout, including guard towers; helped the enemy combatants communicate messages to the outside world; informed the detainees of the identities of other detainees in U.S. custody; and posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.
And that's not the worst of it -- not by a long shot. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has uncovered the Gitmo Bar's shocking effort to identify CIA interrogators. The lawyers -- from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, perversely calling themselves "the John Adams Project" -- actually had investigators stalk U.S. intelligence officers, surveilling them near their homes and photographing them with or near their loved ones. The photos were then smuggled into Gitmo and shown to top terrorists to determine whether they recognized which intelligence agents had questioned them. Interestingly, the attorney general claimed that al-Qaeda's volunteer lawyers deserve the public's "respect" because they "accept our professional responsibility to protect the rule of law." All of the above-described activities not only violated the law; they occurred in flagrant contravention of court-ordered conditions that were placed on the lawyers' access to their "clients." Evidently, violating statutes and contemptuously flouting court orders protects the rule of law in the same way that coming to the enemy's aid exhibits patriotism. That's "our values" for you. ...
Follow this link to continue reading "'Representing' al-Qaeda."
http://article.nationalreview.com/429623/representing-al-qaeda/andrew-c-mccarthy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
