Obama Sold Guns To Gangs
|
Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.” Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya. In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. “This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.” Read “The Case for Impeachment” and know why Obama has got to go before America is done for … Get the bumper sticker that tells everyone to Impeach Obama! In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.” “Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].” Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution. Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer. “Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.” The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows: Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it 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. If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Daily Poll. ================================================================ Congressional Resolution: Impeachment of Barack Obama http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/03/congress-use-offensive-military-force-impeachable-high-crime/ Petition for citizens united http://www.sherrodbrown.com/petition/w1112cug/?gclid=COD6otWG464CFYbe4AodXGtDXA |
SOME ARTICLES FROM 2011 IN REGARDS TO CONGRESS SUEING OBAMA-AND GOT THROWN OUT
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.westernjournalism.com/king-obama-tramples-the-law-continues-libyan-war-by-decree/ King Obama Tramples The Law, Continues Libyan War By Decree May 20, 2011 In his official notice to Congress that he had unilaterally sent American soldiers into the Libyan war kinetic action, Barack Obama wrote, “I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution.” Today, he decided the War Powers Resolution is also disposable. In a letter to Congress today Obama declared America’s role in the Libyan civil war is so “limited” that he does not need Congressional authorization, as that law requires. He then asked their support for a measure John Boehner had not even seen. The move is the most recent of a string of Obama actions that bypass Congress to implement his agenda. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to introduce troops into war for 60 days before either seeking Congressional approval or beginning a 30-day withdrawal. Those 60 days ended today. However, Congress adjourned this afternoon without providing authorization. Obama has made clear our troops are staying in the middle of a losing civil war no matter what the members of Congress – or the people who elected them – think. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kucinich Sues Obama For Violating War Powers Act In Libya First Posted: 06/15/11 01:19 PM ET Updated: 08/15/11 06:12 AM ET http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/kucinich-obama-war-powers-act-libya_n_877396.html .....Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) announced Wednesday that they are suing Obama in federal court over the constitutionality of leading the U.S. into war with Libya without seeking Congressional approval. Specifically, their lawsuit challenges the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations -- namely, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- to authorize the use of military force abroad. "With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated," Kucinich said in a statement. "We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies." The lawsuit is signed by a bipartisan mix of lawmakers, including Reps. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.). Of note: Paul is one of Obama's GOP challengers for the presidency in 2012. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also warned Obama Tuesday that he may be in violation of the War Powers Act by Sunday if he doesn't seek congressional authorization to continue operations in Libya. Sunday will mark 90 days since U.S. forces first struck Libyan targets as part of the NATO-led effort to take out leader Muammar Gaddafi. Lawmakers sue President Obama over Libya http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57032.html ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Why Obama cannot be impeached Exclusive: Devvy Kidd on how a usurper by definition is immune from removal Published: 07/14/2011 http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/321969/ .....Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242. .....To impeach would also accomplish this: Every piece of legislation he’s signed into law would remain on the books. Let me quote Dr. Vieira one more time: “Perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to a usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.” Besides removing a usurper from office, that should be our second-highest consideration and why the outlaw Congress hasn’t moved against him. All 535 of them allowed this to happen, and now it’s gone so far; they don’t have the courage to take on the mess they’ve made. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Follow up on Quo Warranto as it relates to removing Obama/Soetoro By: Devvyhttp://www.devvy.com/new_site/quo-follow-up-051211.html FOLLOW LINK FOR FULL ARTICLE http://www.devvy.com/new_site/quo-follow-up-051211.html http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/55240893 The Quo Warranto is available at the state and federal level. Activist federal judges in this country have been running amok on the bench for decades. The Outlaw Congress has the legal authority to remove federal judges, but that has been as rare as a blizzard in Miami. As I have said for at least a dozen years, one of the biggest failures of Congress after Congress is their refusal to remove biased, activist judges. Just look at the Ninth "Silly" Circuit Court. Their decisions are over turned more times than a gymnast on the mat, yet those same judges continue to sit on the bench for life while we pay them to make bad decisions higher courts throw out. Without the benefit of LexisNexis, I did some more research (I'm sure there are many lawyers out there who know of more) and found this interesting case: Lansing district judge sends heavyweights to fight AG’s ouster attempt "Brennan and Nolan want the Michigan Supreme Court to bypass the COA, which has original jurisdiction of Schuette’s quo warranto motion to unseat Clarke." Here in Texas as well as many states I randomly checked have a quo warranto statute: Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Chapter 66 Quo Warranto Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.001 - Grounds "An action in the nature of quo warranto is available if: (1) a person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or executes a franchise or an office, including an office in a corporation created by the authority of this state; (2) a public officer does an act or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office;" Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.002 - Initiation Of Suit "(a) If grounds for the remedy exist, the attorney general or the county or district attorney of the proper county may petition the district court ..." Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.003 - Judgment "If the person against whom the information is filed is found guilty as charged, the court: (1) shall enter judgment removing the person from the ..." As for removing an individual at the federal level using a quo warranto, as I pointed out you must be able to qualify under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell. (Please take the time to read the entire Footnote 1 below.) I would not qualify. Going back to my previous column, I also believe Dr. Orly Taitz does not qualify. But, I think former presidential candidates Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes would be able to as they were directly impacted by Obama/Soetoro's alleged election even though he was ineligible to appear on the ballot. Baldwin has declined, but I believe Dr. Keyes still could as I cited in my last column [emphasis mine]: "Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted, and is not appropriate for moot or abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation has terminated, quo warranto will be denied. (People v. City of Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).) By the same token, because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. (People v. Bailey (1916) 30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.)" LIST OF ARCHIVED ARTICLES BY DEVVY Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham: Constitutionally ineligible to be president of these united States of America Obama citizenship crisis & industrial strength stupidity Obama eligibility issue must be resolved soon Obama supporters: Deceived or just plain liars? No, we don't have a new president Chief Justice John Roberts meets Obama in private Impeach Obama? Impostor president Obama: victory will be short lived Comrade Barack Obama is not America's next president Obama's gamble: possession nine tenths of the law Stop the election: accurate vote count impossible Presidential election: one giant fraud Obama & McCain: Modern day Godfathers Former Chrysler dealers fight back using the Quo Warranto Rodearmel v Clinton (usurper) case dismissed Understanding the Barnett v Obama dismissal Another Citizenship Case Dismissed - What Next? Obama's Ineligibility: How Deep Does the Corruption Go? Patriots: Time For Major Push on Usurper's Citizenship Issue Every "Law" Obama Signs Brings US Closer To... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OBAMA PLEDGES HIS ALLEGIANCE TO HER MAJESTY... |
OBAMA FACT SHEET-THIS HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 2012
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html Among other things, since taking office Obama has: Obama Fact Sheet Flyer - Signed the NDAA - an indefinite detention bill - into law - Waged war on Libya without congressional approval - Started a covert, drone war in Yemen - Escalated the proxy war in Somalia - Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan - Will maintain a presence in Iraq even after "ending" war - Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan - Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries - Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia - Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia - Touted nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan - Opened up deepwater oil drilling, even after BP disaster - Did a TV commercial promoting "clean coal" - Defended body scans and pat-downs at airports - Signed the Patriot Act extension into law - Continued Bush's rendition program The U.S. is NOT leaving Iraq or Afghanistan, as Obama claims Feb. 7, 2012 - The CIA is expected to maintain a large clandestine presence in Iraq and Afghanistan long after the departure of conventional U.S. troops as part of a plan by the Obama administration to rely on a combination of spies and Special Operations forces to protect U.S. interests in the two longtime war zones, U.S. officials said (read). Here's a partial history of Obama's dealings - listed (roughly) chronologically, most recent first:
|