Obama the Con Man!!!!

Haven't posted in a while and for that I am sorry. It's just that there have been so many things going on in the world especially in the United States with the advent of President Obama multitasking the ruin of our once great nation.

One of those things is Fukushima and the silence. I have found out that both the international atomic regulatory commission from the UN has basically been keeping this a big secret to entire world not just alienate people are living in a nice states that can be directly affected by this nuclear catastrophe. The other day I read a news article where the scientists were baffled at why there were so many dead salmon on the beach.

If you're scientists and their baffled you are playing politics with people's lives which is the most dangerous form of politics, because as those with absolute absence of any care for any other human being in the world.

President Obama is probably one of the greatest jugglers or magicians in the entire world, because he's been able to cover so much ground so quickly alternating pace and all this other stuff like on the master of deception because you really don't know what's going on inside his man's head and what the actual policy goals are, which we will never really know until it actually happens.

Benghazi is one of those other red herrings that keeps popping up every now and then face the basically slam BS and to Congress's face. The latest is that our great General Ham that was told that he had to stand down and not send troops to help the ambassador and the 4 other people there were trapped in the consulate in Benghazi.. Has now recanted his story saying that he was not told to standdown and it was his fault that nobody was sent to rescue the ambassador and the men with him. I find this kind of you can't put it any other way but fishy. Usually a man's initial response is the true response even what women it's the same thing so I definitely think he is lying now in order to save his career and pension. Why would this man will work for President Obama? General Ham is a highly decorated special forces operative for the U.S. Army. My question is is how did President Obama corrupt this man into telling a lie.

It seems that President Obama is becoming more more like the modern day J Edgar Hoover. Because it seems like he has dirt on everyone everyone is scared of this man. One American president said that J Edgar Hoover was the most dangerous Man in America. Not exactly sure who that was but anyone person who has enough information on people to where they fear him, is a tyrant by definition. President Obama's ruling the military out of fear. This is the reason why you find the purging of many military officers who are not willing to shooter American citizens, who are not willing to confiscate their weapons and will definitely do not lead the attained American citizens without probable cause.

When I was in the military during the 80s and 90s, the military was not a political bargaining chip. In fact of there was no place for politics in the military. The United States military was a a political beast because the military has civilian leadership a.k.a. the commander-in-chief, a.k.a. President. President Obama has succeeded in undermining our military by using politics is a means to undermine the traditions of the military which actually undermines the traditions of the United States of America.

President Obama has the American public fooled. Most Americans are under a rhetorical spell of a conspiracy of the state run media, such as the New York Times, ABC CBS and NBC. President Obama only allows news outlets to tell you what he wants you to know. There is a psychological condition to explain this and that is mass hysteria. People who believe that the state will do what's best for them are under this hysteria. Governments in the past that have started by purging the government and military of those officials and officers that do not think or hold the same ideals as the dictator in chief. In United States government has been infiltrated by so many groups that are foreign to the ideals and traditions of Americans they are hard to enumerate. For example, communists, Muslim brotherhood, socialist Democrats, and many many more have infiltrated the United States government. When the government says that, patriots and people who support and defend the Constitution of the United States are enemies of the state. That means that there is a top down revolution happening in the United States government led by President Barack Hussein Obama. Even top-down revolutions are violent and bloody, no one in the United States will escape this conflict unscathed by either death or famine.

This would explain why Bill Ayres called Barack Obama a terrorist.

War in Syria Means the Destruction of the United States!

Right now we sit on the precipice of utter destruction as a nation. If the US was to attack Syria, the other nations with nuclear capability could destroy the United States as we know it. Russia, China and Iran all have nuclear capabilities. Russia and China both have intercontinental ballistic missiles and tactical nuclear weapons of low yield to take out military installations in cities. Pres. Obama is also allowed 15,000 Russian troops to be stationed within the United States borders which could pose a problem to Americans just trying to commute back and forth to work. Pres. Obama by getting us involved in a war with Syria, not could but would have serious consequences for 330 million Americans living in the United States today. We already have two wars that still haven’t been won and have been going on for 10 years or more. Pres. Obama has so many foreign-policy failures in my perspective that he should never be able to run a country. Now let’s look into foreign-policy failures of Pres. Obama, Benghazi Libya, fast and furious, trying to bully Russia, Egypt, the promotion of a former terrorist group in the United States and abroad the Muslim brotherhood. I am very thankful that Congress is finally stepping up and doing their job by halting President Obama’s aggression in the Middle East and Africa.

Many people don’t realize that because of the drought last year and several bread basket areas of the world that we are going to have major food inflation starting sometime at the end of 2013 the beginning of 2014. Most people have realized that their prices have gone up because the prices stayed the same while the containers are getting smaller. People need to take a picture of the containers that a picture of one month and next month the volume will be less from the month before. As people such as the Obaminators, support this man no matter what he does even if it’s illegal, by illegal I mean unconstitutional. This man is about to get us into a war where many Americans will die. If you don’t think so look at the sizes of the militaries of those countries involved. Russia has a 20 million man army which includes their Navy and air forces also. China has a 200 man army and could easily invade the United States from Mexico, the western seaboard and Alaska. Military analysts say that they’ll have to transport ships in order do a land invasion or seaborne invasion of the United States. Pres. Obama initiated the sequestration in the first place, which also has reduced our ability to fight back if invaded. Obama set the terms for the sequestration and it was not the administration’s responsibility for, not with an annual budget but congresses. I have never heard of a President’s administration not having an annual budget. I think it was laziness on the part of the president not have an annual budget submitted to Congress by the deadlines. But he transferred the blame for the sequester onto Congress when he was the person who wanted to sequester first place to undermine our military and show us is a weak country to other nations.

I pose the question that President Obama always wanted to sequestered to happen so he can do exactly what is happening today. Our military is at its lowest readiness I am ever seen as far as going up against major countries like Russia and China. Wars with these two countries are ones that we cannot win. And if you think we can, you’re just lying to yourself and drinking the Kool-Aid that Obama is putting out and yes that Kool-Aid has poison in it. Jim Jones wishes he had the amount of followers that Obama has, Italy killed off have the country.

We do have one ship that has 300 Marines, and not a total of about 50,000 troops in the area around Syria. The Russians have 300,000 troops pouring in to Syria and Iran has an estimated hundred thousand troops going through Iraq to Syria. The Russians and the Chinese both had the same kind of technology that United States does, we have no technological advantage over these countries. Sending our troops in the Syria will be a suicide mission for those troops and for what so our president can spread Muslim extremists throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Our president is not only a fool but maybe the king of all fools.

Is This The Most Unconstitutional Law In American History?.....Posted by Michael CHILDS, Admin II on April 24, 2013 at 1:05pm in Patriot Action Alerts

Last week, while our attention was diverted to the Boston Marathon bombing manhunt, the U.S. House of Representatives snuck in and struck a blow to civil liberties.

They passed new legislation called the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA; and it has substantial implications for online freedom. Read More:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

The Article V started in 1787 and so there is a lot of opinions out there – IMO most are not based in the actual language contained inside the four corners of the original Constitution. Many sites are selling fear and special interest ideas like a balanced budget, or a Line Item veto, or just rewrite many sections of the Constitution. Most have found little national support or support in the many State Legislatures.

The Article V Project to Restore Liberty is the only REPEAL AMENDMENT movement. If the Amendments that have allowed the Courts, the Executive and the Congress are just repealed it would return the power and the money to the MANY STATES as the Founders intended. No money in Washington means no bribing of voter blocks, no power to reward or penalize industries, no ability to social engineer, they would be forced back under the Articles I – II and III which will result in 10,000 lobbyist getting a PINK SLIP . . like thieves in the night they will be gone.

So, the AV project to Restore is without risk as it take two votes from 38+ State legislatures to pass and then be ratified – both sides of the argument are presented in the Library and other sections. No other Project has the research and fact base that backs and proves the viability of the ideas.

“There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore un-alarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court.” ~Thomas Jefferson

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

So the Liberal-Neo Communists and their RINO allies ran another knife into the back of America while nobody was looking? Gee, what a surprise. It just goes to show what a complete LIAR and ObamaPhile Weepy-Eyes Boehner is. The man cannot be trusted, he was bought by Obama long ago.

Of the two major political parties, the Republican Party is the greater threat to America. While the DemoCommies are mostly in front of America, the Repugnacrats are behind it, pinning its arms to prevent any real defense and steadily running knife after knife into its back.

This government has been gathering information on us since the Clinton years. It is just now that they have had the balls to actually build an information gathering center out in the open. NSC has made no secret of the facility. If ANYONE in the last thirty years has thought they had any semblance of privacy, it was just a great dream. How well do y’all really know the folk y’all hang out with? We have had satellites since the seventies that could resolve pictures to read a license plate. Who licenses IP addresses? Just who is your server provider if you have a website? How do y’all search the Internet? Privacy has been a fantasy for so long now that even old farts like me can’t even remember the day. President Eisenhower warned all of us in 1960 and we all just said “nah, not HERE!” Even way way before MY time, we created the OSS in WWII. Oh, and, surprise, surprise!! Joe McCarthy was RIGHT about our government being just a satellite of KGB, the State Department especially. Alger Hiss was part of FDR’s FIRST administration in 1933. And he wasn’t tried until the 1950′s, Although he was discovered AFTER WWII. So, we can protest all we want……..

The Sky is Falling said Chicken Little, Is it True or Conspiracy?

We keep hearing that the sky is falling, the  sky falling. What I mean by that is that there are so many people out there that are saying that they are economy is collapsing and that there’s going to be martial law declared in the United States.  Meanwhile Congress and state legislatures are looking to disarm the American public, law-abiding citizens that really haven’t done anything wrong,  just because of the type of weapon they own, an AR 15 is not an assault weapon assault weapon is one has full automatic for burst capabilities. They keep wanting to change the definition of an assault weapon assault weapon is anything that has offensive capabilities and full automatic capabilities. A semiautomatic weapon is not an offense of weapon because you pull one trigger one-shot fires and that is it, you have to pull the trigger again to fire another semiautomatics especially an AR 15 is a very good domestic and home protection weapon is very easily handle, women don’t have a problem using it once they are trained on it. When I have a hard time controlling a shotgun especially if it’s a shotgun slug  and its pressure is all the way up. If a woman is going to buy a shotgun, she should keep in mind amount of that kick or recoil the weapon has and take that into consideration.

The discussion of what weapons Americans can own and cannot own or capacity of the magazine and is being debated in state legislatures and Congress. Gun sales and ammunition sales have gone through the roof and so have their prices. Getting so expensive to buy ammunition the government may get their wish that maybe it the American public has the guns but doesn’t have the ammunition to fire those guns.

As far as the collapsing of the economy, you need to pay attention to how many dollars by a barrel of oil. As the dollar devaluates it takes more dollars to buy a barrel of oil. And this is away can really calibrate the value of a dollar. You really can’t get a good feel of the dollar from comparing it to other foreign currencies like the British pound or the Japanese yen because most of these currencies are also losing their buying power. Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the daughter has lost 90% of its value since 1913. The Chinese yuan and the Russian ruble are actually start to take over as the reserve currencies because they are based on a gold standard now and many other countries are buying a lot of goals also especially Saudi Arabia which has now almost 400 tons of gold. This is because they see the collapse of the dollar romances that most Americans don’t see the collapse of the dollar as their comparing it to the stock market which has been artificially inflated by the United States Federal Reserve printing out money to keep the stock market relatively stable this was called quantitative easing. As soon as the Fed stops printing money you will see a sudden drop in the stock market. People like, Celente say that the stock market is over inflated that the actual words of the stock market is only between 20 and 30% of the dollar amount, because of the persistent printing of money. Our founding fathers thought that the central bank would be the downfall of the Republic, because one institution in charge of monetary policy for the country would be too much power.

As far as the country declaring martial law, we are seeing a soft version of martial law as of right now increased police presence on highways and in urban areas. As far as the department of homeland security their so-called viper teams I haven’t seen any of those. But if you look at Mayor Bloomberg and New York City which seems to be a testing ground for a totalitarian government banning 2 L bottles of soda, 1 L bottles of soda, 32 ounce cups or higher of soda, this guy really hates fricken soda. I think this is Mayor Bloomberg’s way of pushing the American people especially, New Yorkers to the brink of rebellion, because they will get tired of it. They already have metal detectors or screening devices on the streets of New York in certain areas where people have to walk through and be scanned as if they were going to court or any secured area. They also have a policy of stop and frisk which is a total invasion of privacy and our fourth amendment rights as American citizens.

Barack Obama, also considered the Blamer-in-chief, has cited bill that limits free speech, and freedom of assembly to redress grievances against the government, known as free speech zones. I think cities in the United States have been doing a limited breach of the First Amendment for a long time, by requiring permits to assemble, protests, and redress grievances from our government officials. You cannot protest or assemble by elected officials office, who we elected and pay for with our tax dollars, who doesn’t really represent “We the People.” These government officials represent those people or corporations that have contributed the most amount of money to their campaign for reelection or election. This means that we are now a corporatocracy. Our elected officials represent banks, corporations, large businesses and a very very rich. Which maybe a drawback of being a Republic, because even in Rome when it was a Republic the Senators accumulated so much power by contributions by other rich merchants and the Republic that the people went hungry and homeless. This brought on Julius Caesar, who was a soldier and a commander who do people to look up to as a hero and a leader. The problem was the issues of the people were never really address the hunger and homelessness continued.

Many people don’t realize that Obama was the one that came up with the sequester in 2009, but as a result of his $1 trillion over budget deficit our debt continue to grow while Pres. Obama thought he had a blank check. During his first four years, doubled the number of people on food stamps and increased on the number of people collecting Social Security. That is not to mention, that Pres. Obama also did away with the work requirement for food stamps. He also made loans and grants more available to college students, who cannot get jobs in their areas because of the unemployment and a lack of real jobs market. So this outstanding student loan debt is not being paid back which only adds to the deficit you have more. There are some speculations on how much debt the United States actually happens, some economists have said that are actual deficit to gross national product is almost 500%. I do understand that Pres. Obama had to raise taxes on everybody across the board but there are too many billionaires that are exempt from taxes. He also said that he will only tax people that had $250,000 in income a year, but like most of his promises the also can’t tax the lower income people to the point that it is going to kill our economy. Pres. Obama blames the sequester on the Republicans when is the responsibility of the executive branch to come up with a balanced budget which she has not done in four years. So the only response to this emergency of the debt crisis is sequestration. The biggest areas that are being affected by the sequestration is the Department of Defense and their subcontractors, which means the loss of many more jobs so more people will be collecting unemployment. But the major issue that I is that the sequestration will have little effect on the Department of Homeland Security because the secretary of Homeland security will allow any cuts to be made in her programs.

What does this mean for common American? Well first start, the US dollar will start losing its buying power which means gas, food even water will become more more expensive. This may result in food riots in major metropolitan areas, because most supermarkets only carry three days worth of food in their stocks. As gasoline gets the point to where the trucks can’t transport the food into an urban area, people start starving and they will get more violent in order to survive. So if you live in an urban area, make sure you have either a bug out plan or a bug in plan. There will be people going from apartment to apartment and house to house trying to find to food, and sooner or later they will come to your apartment or house and what are you going to do. If the government continues to try to disarm the American public, we will be defenseless against these roving gangs of people looking for food and water and maybe even guns. If you think you’re not at risk, think again. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Be prepared!

http://survivalofthefitestandthesmartest.blogspot.com/ 

UN Agenda 21 – Fact or Fiction

This content provided courtesy of Politics are Personal. Contact the author at PoliticsArePersonal (AT) Gmail (DOT) Com For over a year, I have been reading about the U.N. Agenda 21 initiative that several Presidents have signed, It is a Treaty of sorts, so, in order for it to have authority on United States soil, it has to be ratified by the Congress. That has not happened yet, but the widespread reach of the original initiative continues around the world. The one thing I want you, as a taxpayer, to understand first is that you and I are paying the bulk of all costs in the perpetuation of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan which reaches into every aspect of your daily life; health, food, safety and individual property rights.

SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION...OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY...BUT IT ISN'T.
UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world.     INVENTORY AND CONTROL.

Sustainable Development was created and defined by the United Nations in 1987, and the action plan to implement it was signed onto in 1992 by GHW Bush and 178 other nations.  It was called Agenda 21, the agenda for the 21st century.  Considered unsustainable under this plan: middle class lifestyle, single family homes, private vehicles, meat eating, air conditioning, appliances, dams, tillage.  
UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is an action plan that is used to inventory and control all resources (land, minerals, water), all animals, all means of production, all information, and all human beings  in the world.  

Clinton began to implement it in the US in 1993 by giving the American Planning Association a multi-million dollar grant to write a land use legislative blueprint for every municipality in the US.  It is called Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook with Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change.  This was completed in 2002 and is being used to train planners in every university, college and government planning office in the nation.  Growing Smart is Smart Growth.

In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners.  It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control.  Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body.  Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation.  Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.
U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected.  It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth.  Although people around the world aspire to achieve the levels of prosperity we have in our country, and will risk their lives to get here, Americans are cast in a very negative light and need to be taken down to a condition closer to average in the world.  Only then, they say, will there be social justice which is a cornerstone of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.

This ideology is being used as the justification to radically change every city in the United States and to impose regulations dictated by non-elected regional boards and commissions.  This dramatic revolution in private property rights extends to every facet of our lives:  our own bodies are our most vital private property.  We are being told that this is OUR PLAN but it is not.

 If you're paying attention and reading intelligently.  Articles about redevelopment projects, bicycle boulevards, neighborhood summits, neighborhood elections, neighborhood revitalization projects, neighborhood stabilization projects, visioning, local boards, smart growth projects, low-income housing subsidies, transportation grants, green building retrofit programs, well monitoring, SMART electric and gas meters, and the people who object to them come out every day.  Connect with those people.  Tell them about UN Agenda 21.  Be a bridge.   

 ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability is an international association of 12 mega-cities, 100 super-cities and urban regions, 450 large cities as well as 450 small and medium-sized cities and towns in 84 countries.  There's an election coming up.  Go to the forums.  Ask:  'What is your position on UN Agenda 21?'  Hold up a sign.  Find out if your town or county is a member of ICLEI.  Ask: 'What is your position on ICLEI?  Will you commit to KICK ICLEI out of our community? 
You can read more athttp://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.html Yep, Dems against the plan!! When you hear "Agenda 21" know that it is not a fiction. The plan was created in the UN and has pored into thousands of think tanks around the world; even into your own Lorain County. You and I are footing the bill via grant monies from every agency in our government. Each one, the Department of Education, the EPA, the Agriculture Department, Homeland Security and all the others, have a series of directives that support the expansion of the United Nation's global plan.

If you don't think you are over taxed and under represented; start asking your representative (and I really use that term lightly) about why you pay a special assessment on your real estate bill for rain water, Agenda 21, sustainable living, smart climate, smart growth, redistribution of wealth or social justice; which is the corner stone for the plan. 

This content provided courtesy of Politics are Personal. Contact the author at PoliticsArePersonal (AT) Gmail (DOT) Com

(UPDATED) Disturbing Report: Veterans are receiving letters from VA prohibiting the ownership or purchase of firearms... Developing...

Written By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.
How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.
What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.
The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.
Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.
Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.
The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.
The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.
-- Michael Connelly, J.D.
Executive Director, United States Justice Foundation​
Follow Us: @redflagnews on Twitter
Get the RedFlag app today for Apple and Android devices...

H. J. RES. 16 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment. The Ratifaction Process for Amendments to the US Constitution

113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 16
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal
the sixteenth article of amendment.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 4, 2013
Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself and Mr. WOODALL) introduced the following
joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.
1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled
3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4
lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5
stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all
6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
8 States within seven years after the date of its submission
9 for ratification:

‘‘ARTICLE—
2 ‘‘The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitu3
tion of the United States is hereby repealed’’.
Æ
VerDate Mar
VerDate Mar

Assignment: Design a Flag for a New Socialist/Communist America

Parents and educators are outraged over an electronic curriculum system being used in Texas public schools after a recent classroom assignment called for students to design a flag for a new socialist/commuist nation.

A lesson plan for 6<sup>th</sup> graders reads as follows:

Notice socialist/communist nations use symbolism on their flags representing various aspects of their economic system. Imagine a new socialist nation is creating a flag and you have been put in charge of creating a flag. Use symbolism to represent aspects of socialism/communism on your flag. What kind of symbolism/colors would you use?

The CSCOPE curriculum is used in 875 school districts across Texas. At a recent Texas Education Committee meeting, Senators and witnesses questioned the effectiveness of the program used as a primary tool to educate millions of impressionable minds.

Committee Chairman Dan Patrick, R-Houston, called it “a mess.”
One witness compared the system to “mind control,” and an algebra teacher wept as he described quitting because he felt he was “aiding and abetting a crime” by using CSCOPE in his classroom.
…
A string of witnesses before the Senate Education Committee criticized the program for promoting liberal values they said are anti-Christian at best and openly socialist at worst.
They also complained that it is hard for nonteachers to get a look at the program.
“Discontent is rampant across the state,” said Peggy Venable, a frequent critic of public schools and the Texas director of Americans for Prosperity.
Source: Ft. Worth Star Telegram

There exists a double standard within the halls of the American indoctrination centers we refer to as public schools.
A hearing impaired three year old was recently suspended for violating a school weapons policy because the hand sign for his name resembled a gun. Just a few weeks ago, a six year old was expelled from a Texas school when she brought a pink bubble gun to school for show and tell. Administrators justified the expulsion by claiming that her actions constituted a “terroristic threat.”
Fundamental bedrock American principles protected under the US Constitution, such as the right to bear arms, are vilified by our government sponsored education system.
Yet, promoting Communism, a system responsible for the democide of hundreds of millions of people over the last century (ironically, by way of the gun) is perfectly acceptable.
Children most certainly need to be taught about the dangers of socialism and communism, but our education system needs to use some common sense when doing so.
How many of the educators giving this assignment to their students mentioned the fact that the economics of Communism leads to strife and loss of liberty? That the laws within those systems are implemented through violence and much suffering?
How many of them explained that the only way to prevent such systems from taking hold is to have an armed populace that can fight back against the tyranny?
This is what we’re up against in America today. Sixty years ago we were holding Congressional hearings in an effort to identify Communists in this country.
Today, we’re electing them to the highest of political offices.
This article has been contributed by SHTF Plan. Visit www.SHTFplan.com for alternative news, commentary and preparedness info.

Show This To Anyone That Believes That “Things Are Getting Better” In America

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Feb 11, 2013
How can anyone not see that the U.S. economy is collapsing all around us?  It just astounds me when people try to tell me that “everything is just fine” and that “things are getting better” in America.  Are there people out there that are really that blind?  If you want to see the economic collapse, just open up your eyes and look around you.  By almost every economic and financial measure, the U.S. economy has been steadily declining for many years.  But most Americans are so tied into “the matrix” that they can only understand the cheerful propaganda that is endlessly being spoon-fed to them by the mainstream media.  As I have said so many times, the economic collapse is not a single event.  The economic collapse has been happening, it is is happening right now, and it will continue to happen.  Yes, there will be times when our decline will be punctuated by moments of great crisis, but that will be the exception rather than the rule.  A lot of people that write about “the economic collapse” hype it up as if it will be some huge “event” that will happen very rapidly and then once it is all over we will rebuild.  Unfortunately, that is not how the real world works.  We are living in the greatest debt bubble in the history of the world, and once it completely bursts there will be no going back to how things were before.  Right now, we are living in a “credit card economy”.  As long as we can keep borrowing more money, most people think that things are just fine.  But anyone that has lived on credit cards knows that eventually there comes a point when the game is over, and we are rapidly approaching that point as a nation.
Have you ever been there?  Have you ever desperately hoped that you could just get one more credit card or one more loan so that you could keep things going?
At first, living on credit can be a lot of fun.  You can live a much higher standard of living than you otherwise would be able to.
But inevitably a day of reckoning comes.
If the federal government and the American people were forced at this moment to live within their means, the U.S. economy would immediately plunge into a depression.
That is a 100% rock solid guarantee.
But our politicians and the mainstream media continue to perpetuate the fiction that we can live in this credit card economic fantasy land indefinitely.
And most Americans could not care less about the future.  As long as “things are good” today, they don’t really think much about what the future will hold.
As a result of our very foolish short-term thinking, we have now run up a national debt of 16.4 trillion dollars.  It is the largest debt in the history of the world, and it has gotten more than 23 times larger since Jimmy Carter first entered the White House.
The chart that you see below is a recipe for national financial suicide…

Of course things have accelerated over the past four years.  Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the U.S. government has run a budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars every single year, and we have stolen more than 100 million dollars from our children and our grandchildren every single hour of every single day.
It is the biggest theft of all time.  What we are doing to our children and our grandchildren is beyond criminal.
And now our debt is at a level that most economists would consider terminal.  When Barack Obama first entered the White House, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio was under 70 percent.  Today, it is up to 103 percent.
We are officially in “the danger zone”.
If things really were “getting better” in America, we would not need toborrow so much money.
Our politicians are stealing from the future in order to make the present look better.  During Obama’s first term, the federal government accumulated more debt than it did under the first 42 U.S presidents combined.
That is utter insanity!
If you started paying off just the new debt that the U.S. has accumulated during the Obama administration at the rate of one dollar per second, it would take more than 184,000 years to pay it off.
So what is the solution?
Get ready to laugh.
The most prominent economic journalist in the entire country, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, recently suggested the following in an article that he wrote entitled “Kick That Can“…

Realistically, we’re not going to resolve our long-run fiscal issues any time soon, which is O.K. — not ideal, but nothing terrible will happen if we don’t fix everything this year. Meanwhile, we face the imminent threat of severe economic damage from short-term spending cuts.
So we should avoid that damage by kicking the can down the road. It’s the responsible thing to do.

You mean that we might actually do damage to the debt-fueled economic fantasy world that we are living in if we stopped stealing so much money from future generations?
Oh the humanity!
It is horrifying to think that all that one of the “top economic minds” in America can come up with is to “kick the can” down the road some more.
Unfortunately, neither Paul Krugman nor most of the American people understand that our financial system is actually designed to create government debt.
The bankers that helped create the Federal Reserve intended to permanently enslave the U.S. government to a perpetually expanding spiral of debt, and their plans worked.
At this point, the U.S. national debt is more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was first created.
So why don’t the American people understand what the Federal Reserve system is doing to us?
It is because most of them are still plugged into the matrix.  A Zero Hedge article that I came across today put it beautifully…

US society in a nutshell: Chris Dorner has been around for a week and has 222 million results on Google; the Federal Reserve has been around for one hundred years and has 187 million results.

If nothing is done about our exploding debt, it is only a matter of time before we reach financial oblivion.
According to Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, the U.S. government is facing a “present value difference between projected future spending and revenue” of 222 trillion dollars in the years ahead.
So how in the world are we going to come up with an extra 222 trillion dollars?
But it is not just the U.S. government that is drowning in debt.
Just check out this chart which shows the astounding growth of state and local government debt in recent years…

All over the United States there are state and local governments that are on the verge of bankruptcy.  Just check out what is going on in Detroit.  The only way that most of our state and local governments can keep going at this point is to also “kick the can” down the road some more.
And of course most of the rest of us are drowning in debt as well.
40 years ago, the total amount of debt in the U.S. economic system (government + business + consumer) was less than 2 trillion dollars.
Today, the total amount of debt in the U.S. economic system has grown to more than 55 trillion dollars.
Can anyone say bubble?
The good news is that U.S. GDP is now more than 12 times larger than it was 40 years ago.
The bad news is that the total amount of debt in our financial system is now more than 30 times larger than it was 40 years ago…

At the same time that we are going into so much debt, our ability to produce wealth continues to decline.
According to the World Bank, U.S. GDP accounted for 31.8 percent of all global economic activity in 2001.  That number dropped to 21.6 percent in 2011.  That is not just a decline – that is a nightmarish freefall.  Just check out the chart in this article.
We are becoming less competitive as a nation with each passing year.  In fact, the U.S. has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.
Most Americans don’t understand this, but the United States buys far more from the rest of the world than they buy from us each year.  In 2012, we had a trade deficit of more than 500 billion dollars with the rest of the world.
That means that more than 500 billion dollars that could have gone to U.S. workers and U.S. businesses went out of the country instead.
So how does our country survive if hundreds of billions of dollars more is flowing out of the country than is flowing into it?
Well, to make up the shortfall we go to the countries that we sent our money to and we beg them to lend it back to us.  If that doesn’t work, we just print and borrow even more money.
Overall, the United States has run a trade deficit of more than 8 trillion dollars with the rest of the world since 1975.
That is 8 trillion dollars that could have saved U.S. businesses, paid the salaries of U.S. workers and that would have helped fund government.
But instead, our foolish policies have greatly enriched China and the oil barons of the Middle East.
Sadly, politicians from both political parties continue to boldly support the one world economic agenda of the global elite.
Just consider how destructive many of these “free trade” deals have been to our economy…
When NAFTA was pushed through Congress in 1993, the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars.
By 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of 61.6 billion dollars.
Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was approximately 6 milliondollars (million with a little “m”) for the entire year.
In 2012, our trade deficit with China was 315 billion dollars.  That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.
In particular, our trade with China is extremely unbalanced.  Today, U.S. consumers spend approximately 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that Chinese consumers spend on goods and services from the United States.
But isn’t getting cheap stuff from China good?
No, because it costs us good paying jobs.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the United States is losinghalf a million jobs to China every single year.
Overall, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been shut down since 2001.  During 2010, manufacturing facilities in the United States were shutting down at a rate of 23 per day.  How can anyone say that “things are getting better” when our economic infrastructure is being absolutely gutted?
The truth is that there are never going to be enough jobs in America ever again, because millions of our jobs are being sent overseas and millions of our jobs are being lost to technology.
You won’t hear this on the news, but the percentage of the civilian labor force in the United States that is employed has been steadily declining every single year since 2006.
Younger workers have been hit particularly hard.  In 2007, the unemployment rate for the 20 to 29 age bracket was about 6.5 percent.  Today, the unemployment rate for that same age group is about 13 percent.
If you are under the age of 30 and you aren’t living with your parents, there is a really good chance that you are living in poverty.  If you can believe it, U.S. families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.
Our economy has been steadily bleeding huge numbers of middle class jobs, and many of those jobs have been replaced by low paying jobs in recent years.
According to one study, 60 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were mid-wage jobs, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been low wage jobs.
And at this point, an astounding 53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.
Oh, but “things are getting better”, right?
Maybe if you live on Wall Street or if you are an employee of the federal government.
But for most families this economic decline has been a total nightmare.  Median household income in America has fallen for four consecutive years.  Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.
Sometimes people forget how good things were about a decade ago.  About three times as many new homes were sold in the United States in 2005 as were sold in 2012.
But we like to live in denial.
In fact, a lot of families are trying to keep up their standards of living by going into tremendous amounts of debt.
Back in 1983, the bottom 95 percent of all income earners in the United States had 62 cents of debt for every dollar that they earned.  By 2007, that figure had soared to $1.48.
Fake it until you make it, right?
But how much debt can our system possibly handle?
Total home mortgage debt in the United States is now about 5 times larger than it was just 20 years ago.
Total credit card debt in the United States is now more than 8 times larger than it was just 30 years ago.
We are a nation that is completely addicted to debt, but as the financial crisis of 2008 demonstrated, all of that debt can have horrific consequences.
As the economy has slowed in recent years, the Federal Reserve has decided that “the solution” is to recklessly print money in an attempt to get the debt spiral cranked up again.
Have they gone overboard?  You be the judge…

And of course this won’t have any affect on the value of the money that you have been saving up all these years right?
Wrong.
Every single dollar that you own is continually losing value…

Overall, the value of the U.S. dollar has declined by more than 96 percent since the Federal Reserve was first created.
As the cost of living continues to go up and wages continue to go down, millions of American families have fallen out of the middle class and into poverty.
If you can believe it, the number of Americans on food stamps has grown from about 17 million in the year 2000 to more than 47 milliontoday.
But “things are getting better”, right?
Incredibly, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless.  This is the first time that has ever happened in our history.
But “things are getting better”, right?
There are now 20.2 million Americans that spend more than half of their incomes on housing.  That represents a 46 percent increase from 2001.
But “things are getting better”, right?
In 1999, 64.1 percent of all Americans were covered by employment-based health insurance.  Today, only 55.1 percent are covered by employment-based health insurance.
But “things are getting better”, right?
Today, more Americans than ever have found themselves forced to turn to the federal government for help.
Overall, the federal government runs nearly 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and at this point more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one of them.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government.  Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.
So is it a good sign or a bad sign that the percentage of Americans that are financially dependent on the federal government is at an all-time high?
And in future years the number of Americans that are receiving benefits from the federal government is projected to absolutely skyrocket.
Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.  Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse.  It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.
If you take a look at Medicare, things are very more sobering.
As I wrote recently, it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.
At this point, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years.  That comes to approximately$328,404 for every single household in the United States.
Are you ready to contribute your share?
Social Security is a complete and total nightmare as well.
Right now, there are approximately 56 million Americans collecting Social Security benefits.
By 2035, that number is projected to soar to an astounding 91 million.
Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.
Oh, but don’t worry because “things are getting better”, right?
I honestly do not know how anyone can look at the numbers above and come to the conclusion that the economy is in good shape.
We have accumulated the largest mountain of debt in the history of the world, our economic infrastructure is being gutted, we are bleeding good jobs, government dependence is at an all-time high and we are getting poorer as a nation with each passing day.
But other than that, everything is rainbows and lollipops, right?
If you want to see the economic collapse, just open up your eyes.
And if dramatic changes are not made quickly, things are going to get much, much worse from here.
Please share this article with as many people as possible.  Time is quickly running out and there are a whole lot of people out there that we need to wake up while we still can.

You asked for it: Obama impeachment: The high crimes and misdemeanors the media won't tell you.

by Chelsea Schilling Email | Archive

Subscribe to feed

Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND, an editor of Jerome Corsi's Red Alert and a proud U.S. Army veteran. She has also worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/you-asked-for-it-obama-impeachment/#RbDjmImozGu61lTr.99

Should Barack Hussein Obama, the 44<sup>th</sup> 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.”
In the Federalist Papers (No. 65), Alexander Hamilton wrote that a president should be impeached for “offenses 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 society itself.”
WND assembled a bipartisan panel of top constitutional experts to evaluate 12 popular arguments for impeaching Obama.
You asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach President Barack Obama.
Meet the experts
Bruce Fein

Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein

Bruce Fein is the legal scholar who is best known for having drafted articles of impeachment against former President Bill Clinton for perjury after he lied under oath about having sexual relations with an intern.
Fein also drafted articles of impeachment against former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney. In 2011, he drew up formal articles of impeachment against President Obama for his use of military action against Libya without congressional authorization.
Fein was a top Justice Department official under the Reagan administration. He graduated with honors from Harvard Law School in 1972. Fein clerked for a prestigious federal court, and has served in top positions in the Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of Legal Policy. He has served as visiting fellow for constitutional studies at the Heritage Foundation, adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and guest lecturer at the Brookings Institute.
Fein specializes in constitutional and international law and is a frequent witness before Congress. He is chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, founder of Bruce Fein & Associates Inc. and The Lichfield Group and author of “Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for our Constitution and Democracy.”
As for his political persuasion, Fein told WND, “I criticized Nixon. I criticized Clinton. I criticized Bush and Cheney. I criticize Obama. I don’t have any reluctance because I view myself as an American first.”
Herbert Titus

Constitutional scholar Herbert Titus

Herbert Titus, counsel to the law firm William J. Olson, previously taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he was the founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University.
And before that, he was a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney with the Department of Justice.
Titus’ degrees are from Harvard and the University of Oregon, and he’s admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, appellate courts in the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th and other districts. His practice has taken him into courts more than a dozen different states. He has testified on constitutional issues before Congress. Titus has also testified on state and federal constitutional issues before several state legislatures.
Titus has written numerous articles, book chapters and constitutional studies and analyses. He is author of “God, Man, and Law: The Biblical Principles,” a text on American common law.
Louis Fisher

Constitutional scholar Louis Fisher

Constitutional expert Louis Fisher is scholar in Residence at the Constitution Project. Previously he worked for four decades at the Library of Congress as senior specialist in separation of powers and specialist in constitutional law. During his service with CRS, he was research director of the House Iran-Contra Committee in 1987, writing major sections of the final report.
Fisher is author of dozens of books specifically on constitutional law. He received his doctorate in political science from the New School for Social Research and has taught at Queens College, Georgetown University, American University, Catholic University, Indiana University, Johns Hopkins University, the College of William and Mary law school and the Catholic University law school. Fisher has been invited to testify before Congress about 50 times on constitutional issues.
Fisher’s specialties include constitutional law, war powers, budget policy, executive-legislative relations and judicial-congressional relations.
Fisher told WND he voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but he and doesn’t let partisan politics cloud his judgment when it comes to constitutional issues.
“I had plenty of criticism toward George W. Bush and Richard Nixon,” he said. “I’ve been just as harsh about Bill Clinton and Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson and the rest. I’m not partisan, but I don’t flinch from saying what the evidence is.”

---

Operation Fast & Furious
In June 2012, the Obama administration invoked executive privilege to stop disclosure of documentation to Congress following Operation Fast and Furious, a gun-walking scheme that resulted in the deaths of as many as 100 people, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
During the botched operation, the Justice Department’s subdivision of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms lost approximately 2,000 weapons, allowing many of them to flow freely across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, but U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen chose to ignore the criminal resolution and not bring charges against Holder.
The Obama administration filed a motion on Jan. 11 to block a lawsuit by  Judicial Watch demanding enforcement of a June 22, 2012, Freedom of Information Act request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious, and “specifically all records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Obama on or about June 20, 2012.”
What the experts say …
“That also probably could be an impeachable offense for Eric Holder,” Fein told WND regarding the administration’s stonewalling on release of the missing documents. “That’s ridiculous. In my judgment, Congress is entitled to any scrap of information it wants for oversight. Some of it they may wish, for prudential purposes, to keep in executive session. But Congress spends the money.
“I’ve gone up there and proposed statutes: ‘No moneys of the United States can be expended by the executive branch to gather or collect information unless it’s shared with Congress.’ That’s the end of the matter. If you don’t want to share with Congress, you can’t collect. Congress, in my judgment, has a preliminary right, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, to see anything in the executive branch.”
Fein said Holder should stop stonewalling and immediately present the requested information to Congress.
“If he had any brains, he’d go ahead and reveal the documents,” he said. “The executive branch is a servant of Congress. Congress is not the serf of some lord of the manor in the White House.”
Fisher agreed with Fein. He told WND, “I was on the first panel testifying about congressional access. I testified before Chairman Issa with three other people, and we said congressional committees have full need for oversight to get access to executive branch documentation. They can’t be told by the Justice Department, ‘Sorry, we’re doing our own investigation’ or ‘Sorry, there’s some sort of litigation.’
“Agencies get into trouble and usually the smart thing, and what they didn’t do, is to say, ‘We made a terrible mistake and we apologize.’ They don’t do that, so there’s more obstruction. The Inspector General report from the Justice Department was like 5 inches of pages, and it was a devastating critique of the Justice Department on how it behaved.
“I would have expected Obama to say, ‘Keep that cr-p away from me. I don’t want to get near it.’ But he invoked executive privilege,” Fisher said. “Obstruction by the government is very, very serious.”
However, Titus told WND, “I would be less inclined to think that we ought to hold the president directly responsible for that – primarily because it was not really a policy that was developed initially during the Obama administration. It was an inherited one, and apparently some of this was going on during the Bush administration.
“It seems to me that the proper target of an investigation with regard to this is the attorney general. He’s the one who’s directly responsible for continuing the program. While President Obama is ultimately responsible, strategically you don’t go after Obama when you have a target as easily identified as Holder.”

---

Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’

In 2010, Obama ordered the assassination of a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became an avowed member of al-Qaida’s affiliate in Yemen. Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in September 2011, along with naturalized U.S. citizen and al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan. Awlaki’s 16-year-old American-born son, Abdulrahman, was killed in a similar strike two weeks earlier.

While there is little argument that Awlaki was involved in terrorist activity, the Obama administration failed to provide due process to the U.S. citizens targeted for the use of deadly force. Awlaki had reportedly communicated by email with Maj. Nadal Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. He had also been tied to the so-called “underwear bomber” who attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound plane with plastic explosives sewn into his undergarments on Dec. 25, 2009. The FBI suspected Awlaki had purchased airplane tickets for three of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers before the terrorist attacks.

Anwar al-Awlaki

However, Awlaki was born in New Mexico, and his son was born in Denver, Colo. There has been no reported evidence that Awlaki ever renounced his U.S. citizenship. In fact, Rep. Charles Dent, R-Penn., introduced a 2010 resolution in the U.S. House to strip Awlaki of his citizenship, but the legislation never made it out of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
Awlaki spent years in the U.S. as an imam and a Muslim chaplain at George Washington University before moving to Yemen. He had been in U.S. custody twice and released before he was killed by the drone strike. Awlaki was detained in 2002 at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City for passport fraud. A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that he had been released by the FBI. He was also held for at least eight months in 2006 and 2007 and subsequently released.
In 2002, Awlaki reportedly led Muslim prayers on Capitol Hill.

Anwar al-Alwlaki's son, 16

He also reportedly dined at the Pentagon as part of the U.S. military’s outreach to the Muslim community just months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the U.S. government on behalf of Awlaki’s father, challenging the federal government’s authority to conduct “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens who are not in an armed conflict zone. A federal district court dismissed the case in 2011.
In January this year, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan ruled that the Obama administration is not required to provide legal justification for its targeting killings to the public.
So how does the Obama administration determine who’s a terrorist for the purpose of compiling its hit list?

Samir Kahn

A confidential Justice Department “white paper,” which is not an official legal memo, was released just last week to NBC News. It states that the U.S. government can order targeted killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force.”
In response to the memo, a bipartisan letter from 11 top-ranking senators to President Obama stated, “It’s vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive interprets the limits and boundaries of this particular authority.” The senators asked Obama for “any and all legal opinions” that clarify the basis of his perceived power to “deliberately kill American citizens.”
Judge Andrew Napolitano warned, “This 16-page white paper was written so vaguely that the logic from it could actually be extrapolated to permit the president to kill Americans here in the United States.”
Napolitano noted that Obama also violated another federal statute: “When the president ramps up the war on terror or decides to move into another area or use the CIA to engage people, whether to arrest them or to kill them, he’s required to tell the Senate and House intelligence committees ahead of time and get their consent. He apparently didn’t do that, and so [Congress is] burned by this.”
What the experts say …

“Some people argue, ‘Well, he’s only killing terrorists,’” Fein told WND. “Oh really? How do you know? There’s no accountability. Was Mr. al-Alwaki’s son, a 16-year-old teenager having dinner, a terrorist? So whenever the president says someone’s a terrorist, are they convicted? If the president says conservatives are terrorists, is he going to kill them?
Fein argued that the killings were “tantamount to murder.”
“We know at a minimum there have been three, but perhaps many more. We’re just guessing. You can’t have democracy and the rule of law if you never get to know what the facts are and you just have to accept what the government says they are. If you don’t have a trial, that’s the definition of tyranny.”
Because there was so much evidence against Alwaki, critics argue a conviction could have been easily obtained by the Obama administration.
“It isn’t like they didn’t have evidence,” Fein said. “They had confession, admission against interest. Any of them might plead guilty. Only an uncivilized, savage people convict people without trial and sentence them to the gulag. That’s what we read about in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Khrushchev and Brezhnev. That’s what we read about in China under Mao. Is that what we want to be?”
Fein also blasted the fact that the Obama administration’s justification for the killing remained confidential until now.
“There’s a huge, strong legal case here, absolutely,” he said. “I worked in the Office of Legal Counsel. I worked on impeachment of Nixon. The idea that I would write a secret memo on something that’s an impeachable offense would be insane. A legal rationale now becomes classified because it would tell the enemy what constitutional theory you’re using justify this killing? You’ve got to be kidding!”
Fisher agreed with Fein: “There are no possible grounds for ever keeping legal reasoning secret. If a legal memo has sources and methods, just strike it out and the reasoning must be made public. If you’re not willing to give your reasoning, I’d ask, what’s going on? It’s probably that your reasons are not very good.”
Titus told WND, “It’s quite remarkable that Congress has basically abandoned this issue to the president, primarily by not addressing the issue in the National Defense Authorization Act not only in 2012 but also in 2013, where it basically gives the president carte blanche to detain any person that he suspects to be guilty of aiding people involved in terrorism. The fact that Congress won’t take a stand on that indicates that it wouldn’t intervene in the president’s use of drones to assassinate people he suspects are actively engaged in acts of terrorism even inside the United States.
“Basically, Obama is claiming the right to be the prosecutor on the grounds that the whole world is a war zone. I think it’s an impeachable offense because he’s neither using the civilian courts nor is he bringing them before our military courts. What the president has done is simply defined the whole world as a battleground.”
Upon reviewing the recently released “white paper,” Titus and attorney William J. Olson wrote, “Now, we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis.  It is deeply flawed – based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
“Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the  procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution’s Third Article that were specifically designed to prohibit the president from taking the law into his own hands, serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.”
You asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach President Barack Obama for assassinating U.S. citizens with armed drones.

---

‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session
The Constitution allows the president to nominate judges and executive branch officials, but the Senate must confirm his nominees. Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution authorizes the president to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.”
But while the Senate was in session in January 2012, Obama made recess appointments of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members of the National Labor Relations Board.
Obama argued that because the Senate had been convening every three days, the pro forma sessions didn’t allow any business to take place, so the Senate should be considered in recess.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Obama’s three NLRB recess appointments violated the Constitution because they weren’t made when the Senate was in recess. Now the Supreme Court has received a petition asking the justices to consider the decision.
The NLRB said it “respectfully disagrees” with the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and will proceed with business as usual because it trusts “the president’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld.”
What the experts say …
“I also denounce those,” Fein said, though he didn’t call for Obama’s impeachment because he said the matter can be settled by lawsuits charging that the occupants aren’t holding office legally.
“It’s ridiculous to claim there’s a recess even when the Senate is quite there and available. In fact, Congress passed a bill during that period. They weren’t in session for purposes of receiving a nomination? That’s such a joke. That was another abuse.”
Fisher told WND, “I voted for Obama, but these people who say, ‘Oh, well he taught constitutional law,’ well geez, he was a lecturer. He’s never written anything on constitutional law in his life. I think that would be quite a slap in his face if they said, ‘What the hell were you doing?’”
Titus said, “I think there’s a problem distinguishing President Obama and earlier presidents who have been making recess appointments. It may be that President Obama has been more bold and flourishing  in the way he has done it, but it’s difficult to distinguish it from acts done before.
“I would think it would not be politic to bring this as a high crime and misdemeanor when it really has been employed by other presidents and there’s a genuine dispute with regard to its constitutionality. I think this should be resolved in the normal courts of judicial review.”

---

Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval
Obama also appointed more than 30 unelected  “czars” to positions in federal agencies while the Constitution requires that such appointments be vetted by Congress. Article II, Section 2, allows the president to appoint ambassadors, judges and other officers “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”
What the experts say …
“Congress clearly has the authority to say, ‘No money shall go to pay the salaries of X, Y, Z unless they’re subject to Senate confirmation,’ Fein said. “That’s really one where Congress, by its negligence, is not insisting on accountability.”
Fisher told WND, “That is a big deal. A lot of people say, ‘Well, that’s been going on a long time.’ In our form of government, citizens vote for representatives, and representatives pass laws. You have people heading departments, and they’re confirmed. There’s an understanding that we will call you up whenever we need to. So there’s accountability through that process.
“Congress passed legislation saying there’d be no funds for three czars, and they were named in the bill. Obama signed it into the law, but in the signing statement, he said that’s unconstitutional because he has the ‘prerogative’ to get the advice  he needs to implement statutes. Well, c’mon Obama. You don’t have a prerogative to bring into the White House anybody you want at any salary. It’s all done by law. It goes back to 1978 where Congress passed legislation saying you have this number of people and these are their salaries and Congress can increase or decrease that at any time.
“I think Obama had no idea what he was doing when he was using the word ‘prerogative.’ He can get all the advice he wants in the private sector, but Congress decides how many aides the president will have and what salaries they get.”
Titus said the move wasn’t unconstitutional, and Obama shouldn’t be held responsible because the popularity of czars under his administration is “Congress’ fault.”
“There’s always been an assumption that the president is entitled to certain people who would not be vetted by the Senate: chief of staff, for example, and others where there’s a real keen interest in making sure that the person who occupies a position is loyal to the president,” Titus said.
“I think the reason why President Obama has appointed so many people in addition to that is because the government is run basically by an unelected bureaucracy. One of the most frustrating things for a president is to come in and realize he can’t fire anybody, except for a precious few who are considered to be political appointees. He’s up against this bureaucratic wall, in a way.”

---

Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer confronts Obama

In April 2010, Arizona adopted an immigration law designed to discourage illegal aliens from entering the state. The law, known as S.B. 1070, authorized state police officers to verify a person’s immigration status with federal authorities and detain individuals suspected of being in the country illegally.
When the state senate passed the bill, President Obama’s administration immediately sued and enjoined the state from enforcing portions of the state’s legislation.
The Constitution does not prohibit states from supporting enforcement of federal laws. The 10<sup>th</sup> Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Just one week after it sued Arizona, Obama’s Justice Department said it would not pursue “sanctuary cities” that openly violate federal law by protecting illegal aliens.
“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric Holder, told the Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”
The Supreme Court weighed in on the matter in June 2012, rejecting key portions of the Arizona law but upholding the provision allowing police officers to check immigration status.
What the experts say …
“The administration is entitled to bring a lawsuit,” Fein said. “Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. In fact, in that particular case, that went to the Supreme Court. There were four issues raised. They prevailed on three and lost on the fourth. So that’s not an abuse. The Court decided, and the administration didn’t suggest it was going to flout the Court’s ruling.”
Fisher told WND, “The Supreme Court did sort of a mixed opinion on that. They didn’t strike down everything Arizona did, but they did allow Arizona some leeway. The Justice Department said this is ‘quintessentially’ a national power. Well, if it’s quintessentially a national power, why don’t you do something? It hasn’t done anything for decade after decade after decade. States have a right to protect themselves.”
Titus added, “He can file a lawsuit. There’s nothing unconstitutional about filing a lawsuit. What is unconstitutional about the Obama administration’s position is that Congress has this plenary power with regard to immigration. Therefore, it can control the states exercising their power with regard to their own borders. If you go back and look at history, the states have always been able to protect their own borders from people coming in and going out.”

---

Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order
In June 2012, Obama issued an executive order declaring that illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and who are younger than 30 would not be deported. They are eligible for a two-year work permit that can be renewed indefinitely under the program called Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Arguing that children of illegal aliens “study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag,” Obama said, “it makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.”
Obama’s executive order mimics some of the provisions in the DREAM Act, which has failed to pass in Congress.
What the experts say …
“I definitely think it’s a very troublesome precedent because the president basically said, ‘Listen, even though the statute doesn’t just carve out an automatic exemption from deportation for this category of individuals, I’m just going to decide unilaterally that I will not deport them.’ Really?” Fein said. “Could you decide you don’t want to enforce the homicide statute for a certain category of people as well?
“That seems to me to fall into a serious category of failure to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ It’s one thing, given limited resources and the number of illegals, to just say, ‘We’ve got limited resources, and as a matter of practical discussion, we’ve got to look at 1, 2, 3, 4.’ But you still have an individualized determination. That happens in the U.S. Attorney’s office all the time when crimes are committed. But just as a wholesale statement: ‘We just don’t want to enforce the law’?”
“Could the president stand up and say, ‘You know what? I just don’t want to enforce the Voting Rights Act anymore. It’s just too much of a hassle’?”
However, Fein added, “There are stronger cases for impeachment” than the executive order blocking deportation of young illegal aliens.
Fisher told WND, “Impeachment? I think it’s a stretch. Reagan did a deal where 1 or 2 million people illegally here would be made citizens. That was supposed to be a solution. Now we have something like 12 million. Both parties are guilty, and the national government is certainly guilty. I was certainly sympathetic with Arizona trying to cope with this under its own means. There’s a certain amount of vandalism and crime associated with these rates. States should be able to protect themselves.”
Titus added, “One of the problems with impeaching President Obama is that much of what he’s doing, he’s doing because Congress has allowed it or authorized it. So Congress is not in a position to review Obama’s actions and, in the House, to charge him with a high crime and misdemeanor. It’s very difficult.”

---

Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress
In April 2010, the U.S. Senate rejected the “cap-and-trade” bill, which created a carbon-tax system and amplified federal power over the energy industry.
Nonetheless, Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, declared carbon dioxide a pollutant. Before Congress had voted on the matter, on Dec. 7, 2009, Jackson signed an “endangerment finding” labeling CO2 and five other gases – methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6 ) – threats to human health.
That step provided the EPA with the authority to regulate the gases in the absence of congressional approval, and the federal agency rolled out new rules.
What the experts say …
Fein dismissed the idea that Obama should be impeached for his administration’s actions on cap and trade: “That’s an asinine argument. Yeah, so what? It’s politics, and if Congress didn’t like it, they can vote to override the regulation any time.”
Fisher said, “I doubt if the EPA has full authority to act in aggression on global warming, but I think they have some discretion. I’m sure statutes passed by Congress on clean air and clean water are on the broad side. The EPA still has some discretion.”
Titus added, “Who created the EPA? Congress. Who has delegated the power to make the rules? Congress has delegated what would otherwise be its job to the EPA. Under the law created by Congress, there are very few standards that would be enforceable to say the EPA doesn’t have that authority.
“Congress has delegated its lawmaking power to administrative agencies in an increasing fashion from the time when it first started doing that in the late 19<sup>th</sup> century. If Congress were to come along now and say, ‘You’re exceeding your authority,’ the difficulty is that it can’t find anything in the statute to prove the EPA is going beyond the authority that Congress gave it.
“Congress could stop this with its appropriations power, or it could pass a statute and say, ‘You can’t do this.’ Or it could abolish the EPA, which, of course, Congress would never do. Cap and Trade is hardly an impeachable offense.”

---

Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers
After Obama took office, the Department of Justice dismissed voter intimidation charges against two leaders of the New Black Panther Party, or NBPP, related to the 2008 presidential election.
The 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment to the Constitution guarantees “due process” and “equal protection of the laws” while the 15<sup>th</sup> Amendment guarantees that “the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged … on account of race …”
As WND reported in 2008, two NBPP members were filmed standing in front of the entrance to a Philadelphia polling station in black uniforms, with one member wielding a billy club.
According to complaints, both men standing in front of the polling station pointed at voters and shouted racial slurs, using such phrases as “white devil” and, “You’re about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker!”
Attorney General Eric Holder’s office was accused by Justice Department insiders of racial favoritism in dropping the charges against the NBPP.
In May 2010, J. Christian Adams resigned as a Justice voting department trial attorney, citing preferences related to trying civil rights cases only when minorities were the victims.
“I was told by voting section management that cases are not going to be brought against black defendants on [behalf] of white victims,” Adams said in testimony before the Civil Rights commission.
Adams was backed up by Christopher Coates, the former head of the voting section for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Coates had led the original investigation of the New Black Panther Party.
Coates stated in testimony, “I had people who told me point-blank that [they] didn’t come to the voting rights section to sue African-American people.”
What the experts say …
“Dismissing voter intimidation charges? Well, it may be that you have oversight hearings and you feel that was an uneven administration of the law,” Fein said. “I don’t know that anybody has suggested that there’s been a single election in which the outcome was affected because there was some irregularity in the voting process. Again, it’s going for the capillaries. I’m not trying to exonerate it. We just have to put a level of gravity on this. This is the capillary, not the jugular.”
Fisher added, “You go after anybody who intimidates voters, regardless of what their color is. The public looks to government to have some integrity, and I don’t see any integrity from the Justice Department there. Voter intimidation is against the law. That’s a basic principle, and you uphold it.”
Titus told WND, “What we have is a double standard. If it’s a minority who’s concerned about access to the ballot and it fits in one of those geographic locations that’s covered by the Voting Rights Act, then a change in the voting law is presumed to be unconstitutional, and you can bet your boots that the Justice Department is going to be right there on the doorstep. But when it comes to white people who might be discriminated against with regard to access to the ballot, they look the other way.
“If there’s anybody who ought to be impeached on that one, it’s Attorney General Eric Holder. Between that and Fast and Furious, if Congress were to do its job, it should bring articles of impeachment against Holder and take it to the Senate for trial.”

---

Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act
President Obama announced in 2011 that his administration believed the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, to be unconstitutional and instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend it in court.
DOMA, which was passed in 1996 under President Bill Clinton, says states will not be forced to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states, and the federal government doesn’t recognize such unions. The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection this spring.
The law has been on Obama’s radar for several years; he promised to repeal DOMA during his 2008 campaign for president.
In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released the following statement:
“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The president has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the president’s determination.”
After the Obama administration refused to defend the law, House leaders instructed the House general counsel to take up the case. Because the Justice Department won’t be doing it, taxpayers have already paid as much as $1.7 million for the legal work.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. has raised the possibility of impeaching Obama over his refusal to defend DOMA. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Congress should “confront” Obama, “threatening to zero out” the budget at the Attorney General’s office until the president decides to defend DOMA.
What the experts say …
“When I served in the Office of Legal Counsel and Deputy Attorney General, the standard for refusing to defend a federal statute was if it was flagrantly unconstitutional under prevailing and longstanding Supreme Court rulings,” Fein told WND. “DOMA does not come close to meeting that exacting standard. Obama’s refusal to defend it violates his obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ imposed by Article II.”
Fisher added, “Decades ago, Congress learned that administrations were not defending certain statutes. There was a rule that if you decide not to defend it, you have to tell them. They’ve been doing it ever since. That’s why Holder wrote the letter saying we’re not going to defend this. I don’t think there’s any question that the administration can, based on reasoning, announce that they can’t defend the statute.
“I thought personally the letter from Holder was on the thin side. It would have been better to have a more substantive document. Maybe the Office of Legal Counsel could have explained why. I read it, and I thought it was pretty unimpressive. I don’t object when an administration, based on good reasoning – which I don’t think Holder gave to Boehner – says, ‘We really cannot in good conscience defend this.’”
Titus told WND, “This is a classic example of the president assuming the powers of the English king. The English king claimed to have the prerogative to dispense and suspend the laws. [T]here’s no question that our founders did not believe that they had delegated the power to the president to suspend or dispense with the law. They gave him specific power to veto, and that was limited. And the ‘take care that the law is faithfully executed’ is a kind of limit upon the power of the president, rather than a broad, sweeping power.
“But this is a difficult one to be a high crime and misdemeanor, primarily because Obama is not the first president to take the position that he could suspend a particular law and not fully enforce it. To make this into a high crime and misdemeanor would be political folly.”

---

Illegally conducting war against Libya
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
The U.S. launched combat operations in Libya on March 19, 2011. For several weeks before the U.S. combat operation in Libya, CIA operatives had been deployed to the area to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and support Libyan rebels in the overthrow of Gaddafi. The New York Times reported in March 2011 that Obama had “signed a secret finding authorizing the C.I.A. to provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels.”
The U.S. military had been reportedly monitoring Libyan troops with U-2 spy planes, a high-altitude Global Hawk drone and a JSTARS aircraft to track troop movements.
Fox News’ Mike Huckabee raised the issue of impeachment over Obama’s order to bomb Libya, stating, “I think frankly, if this issue really gets traction that it deserves, and let it say it deserves, go back. Richard Nixon was forced out of office because he lied. And because he covered some stuff up. I will be blunt and tell you this. Nobody died in Watergate. We have people who are dead because of this. There are questions to be answered and Americans ought to demand to get answers.”
As WND reported in March 2012, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107, which stated, “[I]t is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”
Jones’ bill had 12 co-sponsors, but it never made it past the House Committee on the Judiciary.
What the experts say …
“In the case of Libya, the president had no congressional authority whatsoever,” Fein said. “The whole thing is insane. And the executive doesn’t care because all the time that conflict ensues, that just means more executive power. That’s exactly what the Founding Fathers feared.
“President Obama just totally flouted the whole thing and basically said through his various memos, ‘I don’t need congressional authority to go to war.’ That was clearly an impeachable offense. It’s clearly gross usurpation of the war power.  Both the Republicans and Democrats have acquiesced in that.”
Fisher told WND he found Obama’s actions in Libya “constitutionally offensive.”
“I think it’s completely unconstitutional,” he said. “It’s extremely offensive for a president to claim he can use military force against another country, like Libya, that didn’t threaten us. I find that appalling.
“Of course, the Office of Legal Counsel sent out a memo. It claimed there’s no war because there were no legal casualties. If that’s your legal reasoning, you could absolutely pulverize another nation. If anyone did anything to us like what we did to Libya, we’d obviously call it war. That was a complete and total outrage.”
Titus added, “I think Libya is the strongest argument for impeachment. That’s the one that stands out. It’s unprecedented. It doesn’t even fit within any of the precedents that have been set since Korea.
“If you’re going to talk impeachment, you have to find something that Obama has done that is so distinctly different than what other presidents have done before him that people can resonate with it. The difficult, of course, is that people have forgotten about Libya.”
You asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach President Barack Obama for illegally bombing Libya.

---

Benghazi-gate
On Sept. 11, 2012, a U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were brutally murdered at a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Just three days after the attack, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney accused an anti-Muslim video on YouTube of inciting the attack. On Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made five television appearances in which she claimed the attacks were spontaneous reactions to the obscure film. Obama mentioned the YouTube video six more times at the U.N. on Sept. 25.
However, there was never any kind of protest at the Benghazi compound that night.

During congressional hearings in January in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally was questioned about the calamity on her watch, Clinton claimed she didn’t see a classified State Department cable sent Aug. 16 that said the Benghazi mission could not defend against a “coordinated attack.”
However, the State Department’s Charlene Lamb reportedly observed the attack in near real time.
Lt. Col. Tony Schaefer told Fox News that Obama watched the attack from the situation room: “I hate to say this, according to my sources, yes, (the president) was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, ‘What did the president do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?’ He — only he — could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something.”
However, in their testimonies before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said they only spoke with Obama once during the attack in a phone call. Obama spent the following day fundraising in Las Vegas.
In response to questions from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Panetta said Obama didn’t ask about military options or deploying assets.
“He just left that up to us,” Panetta said.
The New York Post confirmed that a U.S. military drone had been relaying real-time data to Washington, D.C.
After the administration had blamed the YouTube video for sparking the assault, columnist and pundit Pat Buchanan wrote, “[I]if there was no protest, who sent Carney out to blame the attack on the protest? And if there was no protest, who programmed Rice and put her on five separate Sunday talk shows to attribute the massacre to a protest that never happened?
“If real-time intelligence and U.S. agents at the scene knew it was premeditated, preplanned terrorism by Sept. 12, who told Rice to deny specifically on Sept. 16 that the attack was premeditated or preplanned?”
As WND reported, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., charged that the Obama administration appears to be covering up a gun-running scheme that fell apart when jihadists attacked the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

Andrew McCarthy is a former assistant U.S. attorney who served as the lead prosecutor of the terrorists behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
He wrote, “I do think Benghazi could be an impeachable scandal, and I don’t think this is an extreme position.
“We do not yet have the answers about what happened on September 11 – most significantly, when did the commander-in-chief learn of the terrorist attack on the compound and what action did he take to defend Americans who were besieged for over seven hours under circumstances where there were U.S. military assets an hour away? We also do not know how the Mohammed movie cover-up was orchestrated, although the evidence and common sense point to the White House. With four Americans killed and the nation appallingly misled in the stretch-run of a presidential campaign, this is a far more consequential matter than those that led to the Watergate and Lewinsky investigations. A commander-in-chief’s dereliction of duty and his administration’s intentional lying to the American people – to say nothing of its overbearing prosecution of the filmmaker in a transparent effort to shift responsibility to him – would be impeachable offenses if they are proved.”
Nearly five months after the attack, Americans still have more questions than answers.
What the experts say …
“Benghazi is an example of the administration being deceitful, but they do this all the time,” Fein said. “They obviously just proclaimed we defeated al-Qaida and thought, ‘Do we really want to expose the fact that we’ve got the return of al-Qaida?’ Those things happen all of the time. It’s like saying when Bush announced that we had a weapon of mass destruction about the yellowcake uranium in Nigeria, he should be impeached. It’s wrong, but on the scale of things, it’s not worth shouting about.
“In my judgment, what’s so ridiculous is that members of Congress were so busy screaming and yelling about Benghazi, and yet they did nothing when the president illegally commenced war against Libya – when he created the conditions that led to Benghazi. They didn’t care anything about that.”
Fein continued, “It had everything to do with the timing of the election. It had nothing to do with principle. When all of your priorities are solely political maneuvers, that’s the end of the country.
“Politics is about trying to make the country great and hoping everybody wins. It’s not the red team and the blue team and the yellow team, where one team wins and the others lose. That’s what juveniles do and people involved in games. We have an adolescent mentality in Congress and the White House. There’s no statesman who will stand up and say, ‘Enough!’”
Fisher said, “People duck responsibility and accountability. It’s just amazing what’s happened, particularly after 9/11. Obviously the administration erred in not properly protecting U.S. officials in Benghazi.”
Titus added, “I think that’s one of those kinds of situations where, if you’re going to impeach anybody, you impeach the secretary of state. The problem is, she has left office. But I don’t think that prevents the House from impeaching her. Impeachment carries the penalty of not being allowed to serve in the future.”

---

Gun-control executive actions
Just more than six weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre in which 20 children and six adults were shot and killed by a gunman at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., Obama turned his attention to the issue of gun control.
On Jan. 16, Obama surrounded himself with children and signed 23 gun-control “executive actions.”

Despite misreporting by many mainstream media outlets on the issue, at this point, Obama’s 23 “executive actions” don’t rise to the level of “executive orders.” They are merely priorities and recommendations to agencies.
He also issued three “presidential memoranda,” which carry the weight of executive orders, directing 1) federal law enforcement to trace firearms taken into federal custody during a criminal investigation, 2) the Department of Justice to coordinate federal agencies to share information for background checks and 3) the Department of Health to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.”
Obama also called on Congress to pass a package of legislative proposals. He promised to throw his weight behind the package, demanding new laws to institute universal background checks and impose new bans on high-capacity magazines and so-called “assault weapons.”
Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla., suggested Obama could face impeachment for his executive actions. Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, declared, “I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”
When Obama announced his executive actions, Twitter exploded with calls for his impeachment.
But do Obama’s gun-control actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors?
What the experts say …
Fein said, “Gun-control executive orders relating to analysis of information seem defensible.”
Titus told WND, “I think it was a lot of bluster and pomp and circumstance and that it really isn’t a serious effort through the exercise of executive power to really make any significant changes.
“He’s giving people like Sen. Dianne Feinstein the energy and support and the kind of emotional reaction that enables Congress to do these things. What Obama’s doing, very cleverly, is keeping the fire stoked up, keeping emotions high, keeping people with empathy and sympathy. He knows that’s what would get these laws passed.
“At this point, is it an impeachable offense? Not in any way, shape or form.”
Fisher said, “I was watching Obama when he was doing his inaugural address. He’s obviously very talented, verbally. But he kept using the word ‘together,’ ‘together.’ So what is the point of all these unilateral actions?”

---

Worse than Watergate or the Lewinsky affair?
WND asked each of the constitutional experts whether any of the 12 issues listed above might be considered more egregious than the Nixon-era Watergate scandal or Clinton’s perjury following his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky.
“No doubt the predator drone killings, usurpation of the war power, secret interpretations of the PATRIOT Act,” Fein told WND, “those three, in my judgment, are vastly greater in their threat to the constitutional processes and structure than anything under Clinton or Nixon.”
Fisher said, “Watergate was the last time anyone was held accountable. Attorney General John Mitchell went to prison. A lot of people went to prison. We haven’t had any accountability since Watergate. Lewinsky, we all know what happened with that. Really, nothing happened. I think it was a terrible mistake. I think we could have held to some standards, and Congress didn’t.
“We’ve talked about bombing Libya. I think anybody who does that would fully deserve to get thrown out.”
Titus added, “They’re very different. In many respects, the Watergate and Clinton impeachments were really very politically charged. What you have with Obama is a problem in the sense that there isn’t any real concern about the constitutionality or the unconstitutionality of what he did in Libya. This is what’s happened to Congress in the last 50 years. Where are the statesmen?
“Congress doesn’t have clean hands. Without having their own house in order, how do they dare impeach the president for not having his house in order? It’s an unconstitutional mess.
“If the American people really wanted constitutional government – if they were really committed to the kind of constitutional republic that is reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States – things would change.”
You asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach President Barack Obama.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/you-asked-for-it-obama-impeachment/#RbDjmImozGu61lTr.99