Tom Tancredo,WND.com
Barack Obama is indeed succeeding in his plans to “transform America,”but not in the way voters expected on Election Day in 2008. The number of the president’s actions that arguably qualify as impeachable offenses is staggering.
The question before the country is what to do about it.
True,Obama faces the voters in 14 months,and that will be seen by many as a reason to avoid the turmoil of an impeachment proceeding. But one process has nothing to do with the other. Elections proceed on an established calendar,but if he has committed acts that warrant removal by way of impeachment,that process should proceed independent of the election calendar. While impeachment must never be used to override an election victory,neither should the prospects of electoral defeat be used as an argument to avoid impeachment.
Obama has demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and is increasingly resorting to rule by decree. He is recognized by a growing number of Americans as a danger to the republic – certainly a danger to our liberties and also a serious threat to our national security.
It is time for the House of Representatives to take its constitutional responsibility seriously and launch an impeachment investigation. The investigative committee should hold hearings,collect and weigh the evidence,and then present its findings to the Congress and the nation.
Has Obama committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”that warrant impeachment and removal? There is much evidence that says,yes,he has.
mpeachment of the president is justified on constitutional grounds if any of the following 12 questions is answered in the affirmative:
Read more.
Barack Obama is indeed succeeding in his plans to “transform America,”but not in the way voters expected on Election Day in 2008. The number of the president’s actions that arguably qualify as impeachable offenses is staggering.
The question before the country is what to do about it.
True,Obama faces the voters in 14 months,and that will be seen by many as a reason to avoid the turmoil of an impeachment proceeding. But one process has nothing to do with the other. Elections proceed on an established calendar,but if he has committed acts that warrant removal by way of impeachment,that process should proceed independent of the election calendar. While impeachment must never be used to override an election victory,neither should the prospects of electoral defeat be used as an argument to avoid impeachment.
Obama has demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and is increasingly resorting to rule by decree. He is recognized by a growing number of Americans as a danger to the republic – certainly a danger to our liberties and also a serious threat to our national security.
It is time for the House of Representatives to take its constitutional responsibility seriously and launch an impeachment investigation. The investigative committee should hold hearings,collect and weigh the evidence,and then present its findings to the Congress and the nation.
Has Obama committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”that warrant impeachment and removal? There is much evidence that says,yes,he has.
mpeachment of the president is justified on constitutional grounds if any of the following 12 questions is answered in the affirmative:
- Did President Obama have personal knowledge of the illegal “Fast and Furious”project run by ATF and approved by top officials in the Department of Justice,a plan to sell over 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels,weapons now linked to numerous crimes on both sides of the border including the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?
- Did the president have knowledge of the ongoing effort by Attorney General Eric Holder and other Justice Department officials to cover up the true purpose and scope of that ill-conceived,illegal project?
- Did the president direct his appointees on the National Labor Relations Board to bring a lawsuit against Boeing as a political payoff to organized labor?
- Did the president act contrary to the advice and pleas of his own CIA director,four previous intelligence agency heads of both parties and numerous experts on covert operations when,on April 16,2009,he made public four internal Justice Department memos on terrorist interrogation techniques,thereby deliberately emasculating our anti-terrorist intelligence operations and endangering the lives of many intelligence agents?
- Did the president have knowledge of a plan by the Department of Homeland Security,ordered by Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano and the deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol,David Aguilar,to distort and falsify the Border Patrol’s southwest border illegal-alien apprehension numbers by means of a deliberate,planned undercount – for the purpose of misleading the public and Congress about the true (abysmal) state of border security?
- By choosing not to secure the border against unlawful entry,has the president willfully disregarded his clear duty under Article IV,Section 4,of the Constitution to protect the states from foreign invasion? Did the president admit this in a candid exchange with Sen. Jon Kyl,telling him the reason he was not stopping the cross-border human trafficking was to force Republicans in Congress to strike a deal for amnesty legislation?
- Is the president showing contempt for the Constitution,the separation of powers and the rule of law by ordering an “administrative amnesty”for millions of illegal aliens through the implementation of the John Morton memo of June 2011?
- Has the president demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and violated the separation of powers by issuing numerous executive orders and agency rules that have no basis in statute and often contradict congressional votes against such actions?
- Did the president authorize Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to violate current federal laws against aiding and abetting illegal aliens by signing agreements with foreign countries and pledging to protect and fund educational efforts to inform illegal aliens of their workplace “rights”? Also did these “agreements”she signed with foreign countries violate Article II,Section 2,of the Constitution which clearly establishes the manner in which treaties are to be undertaken and ratified?
- Did the president violate his oath of office when he instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts? Does the Constitution permit the person designated by Article II,Section 1,as holding the “executive power”of government to decide unilaterally to not enforce a law he disagrees with?
- Did the president authorize or approve the offer of a federal job to Rep. Joe Sestek if he would withdraw from the 2010 Democratic primary race for U.S. senator in Pennsylvania?
- Did the president violate the War Powers Act by conducting military operations in Libya beyond the 60-day limitation?
Read more.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.