The growing case for impeachment of Obama

Should Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?

It’s not a question yet being asked or debated in the Big Media. But it is a question being addressed by some members of Congress, by an increasing number of pundits by activists on the left and the right – and for more than one or two alleged constitutional offenses.

Some of those who have broached the subject include Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Steve Stockman; former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Fox News’ Mike Huckabee; former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy; left-leaning investigative reporter Dave Lindorff; talk-radio host Mark Levin; former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; author and columnist Pat Buchanan and others.

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “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 U.S. House of Representatives has the power to commence impeachment proceedings. If the House adopts an impeachment resolution, the U.S. Senate conducts a trial and determines whether to convict or acquit. If an official is convicted, he or she is removed from the position and may be barred from holding office again. The official may also face criminal prosecution.

Only two U.S. president have been impeached by the House: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. However, both presidents were acquitted in the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned before the full House had voted on his impeachment.

This powerful legislative check on executive and judicial wrongdoing is reserved for the most egregious offenses against the U.S. Constitution and the republic.

During the debates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment: “[S]ome 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.”

Read more here.

Advertisements

DOJ Suggests Criticism of Islam Could Be Criminalized

In refusing to rule out a future law that would criminalize criticism of religion as racist hate speech, the Department of Justice has left the door open to the prospect of Shariah-style law in the United States that would forbid criticism of Islam.

During a House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz) questioned Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez on whether the Justice Department would ever consider banning free speech critical of religion.

“Will you tell us here today simply that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” asked Franks.

Perez replied by asking for context before Franks repeated the question, adding, “That’s not a hard question.”

Perez then tried to add the context of “when you make threats against someone,” but Franks stuck to his original question and repeated it for a third time.

Read more here.

Release Huma Abedin’s security file!

Michele Bachmann upset the press again. Strange. The news media love handsome movie stars who daringly expose government corruption; why does the press now circle the wagons to pretend that government corruption cannot really exist?

You see, Rep. Bachmann, R-Minn., along with her House colleagues Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Trent Franks, R-Ariz., Tom Rooney, R-Fla., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., wrote the inspectors general of the departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to ask for a national security probe of possible Muslim Brotherhood ties in the administration.

The concerns about possible Muslim Brotherhood influences riled the news mavens, and not only them but Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who proceeded to censure Rep. Bachmann. Yet she and her allies questioned security procedures and levied no charges.

History shows it is entirely reasonable to be on guard against foreign influence in the U.S. government. After all, Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent, was FDR’s closest White House aide, Soviet agent Lauchlin Currie was another top FDR aide, while Soviet agent Harry Dexter White was a senior Treasury Department official. And not until the release of the Venona papers in 1995 was it certain that the Rosenbergs were indeed Soviet spies. In fact, our U.S. State Department has a track record of security malfeasance, for example, having given high security clearances in the post-World War II era not only to Nazi scientists, but to hundreds of brutal Communists and Nazis known to have massacred millions.

So, why the hate-Bachmann rants? Perhaps her reply to Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., documenting the naive governmental disregard for Islamic inroads holds a clue. There Rep. Bachmann quoted Hillary Clinton confiding to the secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” could restrain Americans who might protest the OIC’s planned “Islamophobia” speech censorship.

Yes, the public deserves real “whistleblower” history.

For example, Otto Otepka, the U.S. State Department’s deputy director of the office of security in the 1950s and 1960s, was pressured and shamed for denying clearances to Communist sympathizers. John Loftus, former U.S. government prosecutor and Army intelligence officer, was pressured and shamed for revealing the State Department’s clearance of key Nazis. And what government agency protected the 9/11 victims in 2001?

Read more here.

Real reason D.C. embraces Muslim Brotherhood

A former lead prosecutor of the terrorists behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center says he finds it “very troubling” that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s close aide worked under a “known terrorist sponsor” and that Washington’s bipartisan ruling class is coming to accept the Muslim Brotherhood.

Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York who is now with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told WND’s Greg Corombos in a radio interview, “I think it’s all very troubling.”

He said the family of Clinton aide Huma Abedin has been involved in the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, or IMMA, since the late 1970s.

“That outfit was started, it looks like, with the sponsorship of a guy named Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is connected to al-Qaida, who has been connected to financing of al-Qaida,” he explained. “He ran not only the Muslim World League, which is the front of Muslim Brotherhood ideology, but also something called the Rabita Trust, which not only is a designated terrorist organization under American law, but it was actually run for a time by one of the guys who’s a founder of al-Qaida.”

McCarthy noted that the IMMA has published a journal for several years, and Abedin worked in a top position for that publication.

“I go through that history because, on the very journal that Ms. Abedin herself was affiliated with as an assistant editor – from 1996 almost up until the time when she joined the State Department in 2009 – this fellow, Naseef, was an adviser on the board of that very publication,” he said. “We actually have her working in the same institution at the same place as a known terrorist sponsor. So this isn’t just like a casual ’6 degrees of separation’ thing from some obscure Muslim Brotherhood figure.”

McCarthy recently wrote an in-depth analysis of Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood published on PJ Media.

Likewise, WND senior staff reporter Aaron Klein has detailed Abedin’s ties to the Saudi-financed Islamic think tank alongside Naseef.

However, McCarthy was quick to note: “Nobody who’s questioning the influence of Ms. Abedin – and, particularly, the propriety of her getting a security clearance under the circumstances – is claiming that she’s the policy maker. The policy in the administration is made by President [Obama] and his top Cabinet people and his top advisers and Secretary Clinton. I don’t think anyone is saying that Huma Abedin is responsible for a big shift in American policy.”

Read more here.

Americans storm streets against Obamacare

Tens of thousands of Americans stormed as many as 164 U.S. cities in nationwide rallies against Obamacare and its contraception mandate today.

The “Stand Up for Religious Freedom” protests come as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make its decision this month on the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.

As many church leaders and outspoken critics have warned, Obamacare mandates that all institutions – including religious schools and hospitals – offer employees and students with health care that offers contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

The “Stand Up For Religious Freedom” rallies are a project of the Pro-Life Action League, united with 70 other organizations. The groups are demanding President Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius withdraw mandates requiring nearly all private health insurance plans to cover the prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, surgical sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs, such as Plan B.

WND attended the rally in Washington, D.C., where several members of Congress, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, R.-Minn., spoke in addition to former ambassador Alan Keyes and pro-life and religious leaders. The Washington rally was organized by Jack Ames of Defend Life.

Rep. Bachmann was cheered by the crowd as she greeted them, saying, “It’s a beautiful day for lovers of life.”

“[I]t was three years to the day after Barack Obama’s inauguration – three years to the day – that we saw Barack Obama’s true colors when it came to religious liberty,” she told the crowd. “And we saw that as he signed the health-care mandate for Obamacare.

“[T]his president, on that day of his inauguration, lifted up his right hand and he swore before all of America to that he would uphold and defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. But he had had no problem telling the religious organizations and religious oriented people of this nation that they must be forced to violate their religious beliefs under his health-care mandate. Never before, in the history of the United States of America, has this government required an employer to provide health insurance that would include taxpayer-subsidized abortion; that would mandate the provision of contraception; that would mandate sterilization; and abortion-causing pills. We know this wrong.”

Bachmann declared that the fight against Obama’s dictates are a “heart and soul” fight for religious liberty. (Her entire speech can be seen at the end of this article.)

Her colleagues from the U.S. House, Andy Harris, M.D., R-Md., Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Steve King, R-Iowa, addressed the crowd as well.

Read more here.