‘No question’ Obama should be impeached

Rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent says there’s “no question” President Obama should be impeached, and he’s blasting CNN anchor Piers Morgan as an “effective idiot” in the battle over the Second Amendment.

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 … .”

Read more here.

Our Child of a President Has Committed an Impeachable Offense

RUSH: You know, this really is unprecedented. It’s not getting any attention. It’s not getting any commentary whatsoever. It’s barely even being reported. But, I mean, this is serious stuff. 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.

We mentioned this late in the program yesterday. Hundreds of illegal alien criminals have been released from illegal alien jail. 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. Now, not all of those have been released yet. This is the president of the United States. Look, folks, I understand that we’ve gotta be very careful here in how we approach criticism of Obama, but, man, this is unprecedented. This is actually action that will do harm.

Now, I know Obama thinks that he’s harming Republicans. This is exacting harm on the country, and it’s entirely unnecessary. None of these so-called budget cuts are necessary. None of this panic is necessary. It is not even going to be felt in reality if the sequester actually does happen. We read the three-paragraph report from the AP on this near the end of the program yesterday, but there hasn’t been much mention of it in the rest of the Drive-By Media. I’ve only seen one article buried in the New York Times on a report from Fox News. Fox is reporting 500 illegal alien criminals were released in Pima County, Arizona, alone. Apparently Obama never gets tired of sticking it to Arizona.

The New York Times reported that there were reports of releases in more than a dozen other locations all over the country. Can you imagine any other president doing this in a fit of pique? “Okay, I’ll show you.” You know, folks, I’m gonna tell you something. 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.

Read more here.

Is Obama’s BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?

By Raymond Richman

As former counsel and trainer in political tactics for ACORN, President Obama used a well-known ACORN tactic, the shakedown, in getting BP to create the $20 billion escrow (slush!) fund without any law, legal controls, or binding rules to guide it on how, to whom, and how much those injured materially by the oil spill will be paid. Attorney Kenneth Feinberg, well-respected and well-known for heading the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, was appointed by the President to administer the escrow fund. BP will pay $5 billion into the fund for four years, starting in 2010.

BP announced early after the spill that it would pay all justifiable claims resulting from the disastrous oil spill. It opened 25 claims offices. As of June 15, BP approved initial payments that amounted to $63 million, expected to rise to $85 million by the end of the week, to businesses claiming $5,000 or more in damages. Why did the President insist that his own personal organization take over the job of paying claims? After all, supervising reparations is a judicial function, not an executive function. BP created its own fund and appointed its administrator and determined how it will be staffed with a view to ensuring only qualified persons, businesses, and governments would be reimbursed for its losses. Now those decisions will be made politically.

It is obvious that BP’s CEO agreed to create this fund and allow the President to administer it to prevent President Obama from bankrupting their company. After all, the President was on record that he would “kick BP’s ass” and a cabinet members declared he would “put his boot on BP’s neck.” The President when announcing the creation of the fund stated the terms of the fund would keep BP viable. He cannot know this. BP’s liability is not affected by the fund except to the extent claims are voluntarily settled. Those refusing to settle and their lawyers are not bound by it nor are juries that will hear their lawsuits.

The President has no legal authority to create the escrow fund and no authority to compel BP to contribute to the fund. Forcing BP to agree to the terms of the escrow is ultra vires (i.e., illegal), beyond the powers of his office. Rep. Barton (R, Texas) accurately described the slush fund as a “shakedown” (i.e., blackmail), a felony. If so, Pres. Obama has committed an impeachable offense. Congress itself does not have the authority to create the escrow fund retroactively. Congress will have no voice at all except to vilify any Republican who raises questions about it. All the ACORN employees who lost their jobs when the banks stopped paying “blackmail” to ACORN may be getting better-paying new jobs processing claims.

No doubt the media, which show pictures of the spill and pelicans covered with oil 24 hours a day, seven days a week, will hail the President’s tough dealing with BP. But BP’s oil spill deserved the strongest action under the law, not above the law. A few miles away, there are pelicans flying “free as a bird” with no oil on them. Not a single photo of them. And more than 10,000 barrels of the spilled oil are being recovered by BP daily with no photos at all; vessels are skimming oil near the spill and no photos. And the federal government has yet to grant exception to the Jones Act that is preventing foreign vessels ready to skim oil from getting closer to shore to prevent more serious damage which would, incidentally help save a lot of pelicans. No wonder BP believed it had to surrender to the President.

You don’t have to be paranoid to suspect the President (and many in the media) of ulterior motives, a hidden agenda. If you can get enough people to hate the oil companies, you might get the cap and trade bill passed. By the time they regret such hasty action, it will be too late to undo the damage. Cap and trade was given no chance for passage before the spill. The President pacified the environmental extremists by banning drilling in the Gulf for six months, adding to the rolls of the unemployed and increasing our dependence on foreign oil. To make the hidden agenda more believable, the President overreached by getting BP to agree to pay the lost wages incurred by workers who lost their jobs as the result of the President’s six month moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. The hidden agenda obviously includes getting cap and trade passed. It looks like “cap and trade, cap and trade, cap and trade” has displaced “jobs, jobs, jobs”.

The President employed a similar tactic when he nationalized GM, violating the bankruptcy laws by denying bondholders their rightful control of the future of those enterprises and gave the bondholders’ interest in GM to the unions instead, literally. He gave Chrysler to Fiat, The bondholders of both gave their consent, being afraid of having their asses kicked or having a boot on their necks.

When an executive uses threats to secure the “cooperation” of private businesses, we have a name for it, fascism. It is the kind of act we expect from Venezuela’s Chavez not from a President who swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers. I believe the President’s behavior is ultra vires and that he has committed an impeachable offense.

Raymond L. Richman, JD, PhD, is a member of the Illinois Bar and has a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago. He and his son and grandson maintain a blog at http://www.idealtaxes.com, and co-authored the 2008 book, Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it’s Too Late, published by Ideal Taxes Association.

Obama dodges, but Sestak questions won’t go away

By: Byron York

How interested is Barack Obama in discussing Rep. Joe Sestak’s allegation that the White House offered him a big government job if he would not challenge Sen. Arlen Specter, the White House’s favored candidate in the Pennsylvania Senate primary?

Well, when the president was asked about it at his news conference Thursday — the question didn’t come up until the very last reporter was called on — the normally long-winded Obama spoke for a total of 32 seconds.

“I can assure the public that nothing improper took place,” Obama said, echoing earlier statements from White House officials who denied any wrongdoing. “There will be an official response shortly.” And that was that.

Obama’s brief answer brought a smile to Rep. Darrell Issa, who has been pursuing the Sestak issue in his role as ranking Republican on the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform. “That means the answer will be forthcoming after the lights go out for the weekend,” Issa said shortly after the news conference. “While the president is away and nobody’s available, a statement will come out.”

The way Issa sees it, the White House has to thread the needle when it finally responds to Sestak’s charges. A retired Navy admiral, Sestak is now the Democratic candidate for Senate from Pennsylvania, and the White House wants all the Democratic senators it can get. So they can’t come out and call Sestak a liar or a hack. On the other hand, they can’t admit that what Sestak is saying is true, because that would be, in the words of top White House adviser David Axelrod, a “serious breach of the law.”

So what can the White House do? “They can say we’re sorry, that the job offer was not intended to be a quid pro quo,” Issa says. “They can say that we offered a job to a person who was in the process of running for a Senate seat but who we felt he was better suited to be secretary of the Navy, and we never intended for it to be a quid pro quo but rather to fill our Cabinet with good people. That’s the only thread-the-needle that I see.”

It might thread the needle, but it won’t end the questions. Say it turns out, as everyone believes, that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was the official who talked to Sestak, and the job in question was secretary of the Navy. “Everybody is going to ask [Emanuel], Did you talk to the president about this?” Issa says. “What happened when [Sestak] turned you down? Did you believe he would get out of the race for this job? Did you talk to Arlen Specter about this? All those questions are inevitable.”

Inevitable that they’ll be asked, but not that they’ll be answered, or that the answers will satisfy critics. The matter at hand is a conversation that took place between Sestak and the White House. To determine whether any wrongdoing occurred, we have to learn both sides of the conversation. If the White House releases its side of the story, then we’ll have to hear from Sestak, who has so far refused to provide any details. Only then can investigators evaluate both versions of events.

Which is why on Wednesday all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee — a group that included the moderate Sen. Orrin Hatch — wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder to ask that a special prosecutor be appointed to look into the Sestak matter. Citing Axelrod’s statements, the senators wrote, “We do not believe the Department of Justice can properly defer to White House lawyers to investigate a matter that could involve a ‘serious breach of the law.’ ”

Holder has already rejected a similar request from Issa. And no Democrats in the House or Senate support a Justice Department investigation, nor does the White House. With total one-party control of the government, a formal probe is highly unlikely. But some Democrats do want the issue to be resolved and have urged both sides to get the facts out.

The next move is up to the White House. Nobody expects a holiday-weekend news release to end the matter, but it will be the start of what could be a long process. “Everyone is going to have follow-up questions,” says Issa. “And I’m a patient man.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-dodges_-but-Sestak-questions-won_t-go-away-95071799.html#ixzz0pEGKtBxt