SOMETHING FOUL


Since the Dems are clearly warping Constitutional Intent, creating gutless lies and  fabricating witnesses ex nihilo against President Trump to remove him from Office; this submission from 11/1 is still extremely valid TODAY November 4.

 

JRH 11/4/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

 

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

****************************

SOMETHING FOUL

Democrats: DANGEROUS TO THE REPUBLIC

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/1/2019 4:08 PM

 

Something foul has gripped the Democratic Party, and under Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s weak leadership, and prodded on by the despicable fraud and liar known as Representative Adam Schiff, the Democratic Party is weaponizing the process for impeaching a sitting U.S. president, despite the fact that President Donald J. Trump, love him or hate him, has not committed any high crime or misdemeanor. Their unhinged zeal to avenge the 2016 loss and damage Pres. Trump before the 2020 election has them snorting too much gas from imaginary smoking guns fired by people with an agenda, and in their non-linear manner of thinking, they continue their Marxist assault on the Republic, through their own lawless and criminal behavior and a kangaroo court and inquisition.

 

On October 31st, the House Democrats held a vote on a resolution to proceed with an impeachment inquiry, which passed with a vote of 232-196. Two Democrats, Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Collin Peterson (Minn.) voted against the move, and one time Republican turned Independent, Justin Amash (Mich.) voted in favor of the inquiry.

 

This same day at 10:35 AM, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Minority Leader in the House, tweeted: 100% of Republicans just voted AGAINST this sham impeachment. Two Democrats joined us. Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff have both insisted that impeachment should be bipartisan. The only bipartisan vote today was AGAINST impeachment.”

 

Representative Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, suggested the Democrats had turned into “a cult”, angrily adding: “We now have a full-fledged impeachment committee in the basement of the Capitol. Think about that, America.”

 

Prior to the vote, Democrats took their proceedings into the basement of the Capitol and conducted closed door hearings for weeks, overseen by the Intelligence Committee, as a justification for their secrecy, and controlled by Adam Schiff in a Soviet style process, when such hearings on impeachment have always been conducted in the Judiciary Committee in the past. Shifty Schiff limited Republican access to witnesses and details discussed and gave Democrats unfettered access to all the proceedings, and he has ignored due process by blocking President Trump’s counsel, creating a substandard process that is dangerous to the presidency and the future of the United States Republic.

 

Under this new resolution, the Democrats are still cutting the President’s counsel out of the hearings in unprecedented fashion and violating the due process that is his right. The President won’t even be able to question any witnesses until the process has long been underway, and, although Republicans can request witness testimony, the Democrats have voted themselves the option of refusing those requests.

 

Much of the Democrats’ supposed evidence of wrongdoing centers on allegations made by Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council staffer, and Eric Ciaramella, a CIA analyst. Both men have reason to oppose President Trump, but not to attack him in such a vicious manner as championing an impeachment process that wreaks of treason and a continued attempt to unseat a duly elected President of the United States.

 

[Blog Editor: On Vindman despite valor in battle:

 

 

 

 

 

When looking at Vindman valor there is something in historical context to look at. Benedict Arnold was one of George Washington’s best generals in the Revolutionary War – until he wasn’t.]

 

Paul Sperry, investigative journalist, notes that Ciaramella is an Obama holdover and a registered Democrat, who has previously worked with Vice-President Joe Biden and CIA Director John Brennan, who played a key role in the long-running soft coup against President Trump. Ciaramella was also removed from his National Security Council posting at the White House in the middle of 2017, due to his breach of the chain of command and numerous anti-Trump leaks to the media. He is also supposedly the “whistle blower”, although Sperry’s account still remains unconfirmed at this point; however, Ciaramella’s name does seem to be on everyone’s lips in D.C. at the moment.

 

[Blog Editor: On Eric Ciaramella’s credibility as any kind of witness against President Trump:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any questions? Dems Lie! The Dems are more concerned about transforming the Republic away from Founding Principles than preserving the Republic. AND Eric Ciaramella is ONLY one example of Dem-Marxist transformationism]

 

In a move the mainstream media saw as an attempt to out the whistle blower, Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX) recently asked a witness about Eric Ciaramella. Later, speaking to a Dallas radio station, Gohmert stated: “A lot of us in Washington know who it is. He’s a very staunch Democrat … a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he didn’t blow any whistles on their corruption.”

 

Lt Colonel Vindman was born in Ukraine, and although commendable, receiving a Purple Heart for being wounded in combat, as he was, doesn’t make him a hero whose every word must be taken as the Gospel. It only means he didn’t shirk his duty and he served honorably, as have so many millions of Americans.

 

He had a policy difference with President Trump regarding the country of his birth, and despite all the Democrats’ cries of “the Constitution, the Constitution”, Vindman could care less about any alleged violation of the Constitution by Pres. Trump. The gravamen of his complaint focused on the possibility that $380 million was going to be withheld from Ukraine, if the investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden’s Burisma dealings was pressed, alienating D.C. Democrats from the policy of using Ukraine as a tool against Putin and Russia. Essentially, this is a case of a Ukrainian born analyst butting into U.S. policy to ensure U.S. foreign aid continues flowing into Ukraine without objection.

 

After Schiff announced that the whistle blower might not even testify in a closed session, Republicans noted his motives cannot be properly assessed by the public, if he remains hidden. And Rep. Jim Jordan, head of the House Oversight Committee stated: “It’s tough to determine someone’s credibility if you can’t put them under oath and ask them questions.”

 

A former top National Security Council official, Tim Morrison, was on that call between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine on July 25th, and Morrison states: “I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.”

 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on October 30th, the following: “I heard the President very clearly on that call talking about making sure that corruption — whether that corruption took place in the 2016 election, whether that corruption was continuing to take place, that the monies that were being provided would be used appropriately. It was very consistent with what I’d understood President Trump and our administration to be doing all along.”

 

Aid to Ukraine was not withheld and most of the criticism is political opportunism from Democrats, who cared little about Ukraine, until Hillary lost the Big Brass Ring and the ticket to the White House. Trump’s only sin was not requesting anti-corruption assistance through proper channels, because Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma Holdings, while Ol’ Joe was Vice-President of the United States, is a legitimate priority for U.S. and Ukrainian anti-corruption investigations. The Biden’s activities shouldn’t be swept under the rug due to the embarrassment or criminal charges for bribery it may bring some people.

 

President Trump blurred the line between U.S. national interests and his own personal and political interests a little, but even taking the worst-case scenario on Ukraine — a quid pro quo exchange of foreign aid for political favor — political sin or not, it certainly doesn’t arise to the level of a crime or an impeachable offense.

 

Any normal decent American fully understands that this is an UGLY and DANGEROUS gambit to undo the 2016 election and throw the 2020 election into turmoil, due to the Democratic Party’s realization that they will not be able to beat President Trump in a FAIR ELECTION PROCESS.

 

Steaming ahead like an out-of-control train, the Democrats are ignoring the common law definition and the Founders’ understanding of the limited and technical meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” centered around abuse of power and grave breaches of trust and the Founders’ rejection of “maladministration”. They are attempting to impeach the president, despite the absence of impeachable offenses, and they are trying to neutralize and destroy President Trump, through a list of alleged impeachable offenses that they change each time one fails to produce the desired results: In the process, they are seeking to exercise control over the president that is not authorized in the Constitution and strictly forbidden by the Framers of the Constitution, since in the absence of any real and specified criminal conduct, the only legitimate remedy for a non-impeachable president lies with the voters, not Congress.

 

By Justin O. Smith

+++++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Sarah Palin Doubles Down – Impeach Obama 7-19-14


Sarah Palin at Western Conservative Summit 2014 (3)

In spite of critics on both the Left and the Right, Sarah Palin is doubling down with speeches demanding Congress impeach President Barack Hussein Obama. Palin delivered her fiery speech to impeach Obama at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver on July 19.

 

Below is a shortened video of the speech. I am following with a B. Christopher Agee short article high lighting the speech from Western Journalism. Then for those who are interested, I am following the Agee article with Sarah Palin’s full 36 and half minute speech. And yes I still agree with Sarah Palin.

 

JRH 7/21/14

Please Support NCCR

**************************************

VIDEO: Sarah Palin Doubles Down – Impeach Obama 7-19-14

 

 

Published by Shelly Dankert

Published on Jul 19, 2014

 

This afternoon, at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, CO, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin doubled-down on her call to impeach President Obama. She explains her stance and lists several offenses for which Obama could be impeached. Governor Palin initially called for the impeachment of President Obama in an article published on July 8, 2014 on Breitbart.com found here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governme…

FULL SPEECH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSz0M…

http://www.nebraskattitude.com/2014/0…

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Watch: What Sarah Palin Just Said Could Have Obama Looking Over His Shoulder

By B. CHRISTOPHER AGEE

JULY 21, 2014

Western Journalism

 

Conservative firebrand Sarah Palin tackled Barack Obama’s perceived dereliction of duty during a weekend speech, going so far as to double down on her prior claim that he should be impeached.

 

“These days you hear all of these politicians denouncing Barack Obama,” she said at the Western Conservative Summit, “’Oh, he’s a lawless, imperial president and he ignores court orders and changes laws by fiat and refuses to enforced laws that he just doesn’t like.’”

 

Palin complained, however, that the outrage generally ends at the rhetorical phase.

 

“That’s true,” she said of the common criticisms; “but the question is hey, politicians, what are you gonna do about it?”

 

She suggested “calling their bluff,” noting that decisive action is the only way to deliver a clear message.

 

“There’s only one remedy for a president who commits high crimes and misdemeanors,” she said, “and it’s impeachment.”

 

The former Alaska governor went on to note that America’s founders viewed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

 

She said an impeachable offense, according to Alexander Hamilton, consists of “injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

 

According to Palin, a number of scandals that have rocked the administration thus far fit that bill. Primarily, however, she noted that the immigration crisis should qualify as grounds for impeachment.

 

“Alone,” she concluded, “not defending borders is dereliction of duty, violating the oath of office. If that’s not impeachable, nothing is. And if he’s not impeachable, no one is.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

VIDEO: Sarah Palin – Western Conservative Summit – Denver, CO (FULL SPEECH)

 

 

Published by Shelly Dankert

Published on Jul 19, 2014

 

Sarah Palin spoke this afternoon at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, CO.

http://www.nebraskattitude.com/2014/0

_____________________________

Shelly Dankert Youtube uploads

 

___________________________

Watch: What Sarah Palin Just Said Could Have Obama Looking Over His Shoulder

 

About the Author B. Christopher Agee

 

An award-winning journalist, B. Christopher Agee spent more than a decade building a career in newspaper and radio. He is currently the senior staff writer at Western Center for Journalism. Chris is the author of two books and is a frequent guest on talk radio shows across the U.S. He lives with his wife, Nancy, in Phoenix, Ariz.


Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved.

 

About Western Journalism – Western Center for Journalism

 

WesternJournalism.com

 

WesternJournalism.com is a blogging platform built for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters by the Western Center for Journalism (WCJ).

 

The platform hosts hundreds of bloggers, and our content is widely distributed using social media. In 2013 WesternJournalism.com grew by 103% and served 41,486,142 page views to 13,479,014 unique visitors.

 

New blogs are able to be successfully launched using the platform because of the large audience actively served.

 

Western Center for Journalism

 

The Western Center for Journalism was founded in 1991 by Journalist Joseph Farah. Since 2007 the WCJ has been led by columnist and veteran broadcaster Floyd Brown.

 

WCJ is a vigorous watchdog that reports on government corruption and abuse. The Center is a strong defender of READ THE REST

The House should Investigate and Subpoena Obama Administration to the Hilt


BHO calls scandals - Americans Call Crimes

John R. Houk

© June 15, 2014

 

In a recent Conservative Campaign Committee (CCC) fundraising email I discovered even more SMOKING GUN evidence that the entirety of the Obama Administration conspired to lie about the Benghazi attack to American voters for political reasons. The CCC email doesn’t harp on the political reasons as I think it should. You have to realize the political reasons were to ensure the reelection of Comrade Obama as the President of the United States of America in November 2012. The Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack on the diplomatic annex was a planned attack on September 11, 2012. Obama tried to make that attack appear to voters that the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous motivated riot due to a sophomoric made Youtube video produced in America that was designed to be provocatively racist against Islam.

 

If you have ever gotten to see what is billed as a Youtube trailer before it was yanked you know the video is so poorly made that it is almost humorous. Unfortunately Free Speech in Islam’s Sharia Law is blasphemous so it is true Muslims were offended. SO WHAT! The Obama Administration has forced American Christians to participate in so many offensive measures from killing unborn lives (taxpayer supported abortions), forcing Christian Hospitals to perform abortions on demand, to force businesses owned by Christians to cater to the service needs of homosexuals even though that lifestyle is an oft repeated abomination to the Presence of God in the Holy Bible and more.

 

Christian Rights are vacated in the name multicultural acceptance. Christians are forced to absorb the mirth of atheistic Leftists and abortionists, Muslims spewing hate toward Christians (See Also HERE), homosexuals spewing hate toward Biblical Christians and more.

 

AND YET when a Christian or Counterjihad writer exposes what the actual Quran, Hadith and Sira of Islam do proclaim, it is called hate-speech or bigoted Islamophobia! (See Also HERE and HERE)

 

I have no doubts that the Obama Administration tried to both assuage Muslims and fool American voters that his Presidency is totally supportive of a Muslim’s right to go crazy due to multicultural deference.

 

Is lying to voters to gain an election victory a crime in the USA?

 

This is not just executive overreach. In many cases, Obama’s exercise of authoritarian power is criminal. His executive branch is responsible for violations of the Arms Export Control Act in shipping weapons to Syria, the Espionage Act in Libya, and IRS law with regard to the targeting of conservative groups. His executive branch is guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Benghazi and in the Fast and Furious scandal, and bribery in its allocation of waivers in Obamacare and tax dollars in its stimulus spending. His administration is guilty of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

 

And yet nothing is done. (Prosecute the President; By Ben Shapiro; FrontPage Mag; 6/12/14)

 

That excerpt above lists only a fraction of the legal infractions committed either by President Obama’s direction and/or Obama’s Executive Branch. And there is no criminal investigations! Why?

 

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM JUDICIAL DIRECTION

 

By the decision of the Court in Mississippi v. Johnson,720 in 1867, the President was placed beyond the reach of judicial direction, either affirmative or restraining, in the exercise of his powers, whether constitutional or statutory, political or otherwise, save perhaps for what must be a small class of powers that are purely ministerial.721 An application for an injunction to forbid President Johnson to enforce the Reconstruction Acts, on the ground of their unconstitutionality, was answered by Attorney General Stanberg, who argued, inter alia, the absolute immunity of the President from judicial process.722 The Court refused to permit the filing, using language construable as meaning that the President was not reachable by judicial process but which more fully paraded the horrible consequences were the Court to act. First noting the limited meaning of the term “ministerial,” the Court observed that “[v]ery different is the duty of the President in the exercise of the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and among these laws the acts named in the bill. . . . The duty thus imposed on the President is in no just sense ministerial. It is purely executive and political.

 

“An attempt on the part of the judicial department of the government to enforce the performance of such duties by the President might be justly characterized, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, as ‘an absurd and excessive extravagance.’

 

 

Rare has been the opportunity for the Court to elucidate its opinion in Mississippi v. Johnson, and, in the Watergate tapes case,724 it held the President amenable to subpoena to produce evidence for use in a criminal case without dealing, except obliquely,[p.580]with its prior opinion. The President’s counsel had argued the President was immune to judicial process, claiming “that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere . . . insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications.”725 However, the Court held, “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high–level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”726 The primary constitutional duty of the courts “to do justice in criminal prosecutions” was a critical counterbalance to the claim of presidential immunity and to accept the President’s argument would disturb the separation–of–powers function of achieving “a workable government” as well as “gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.”727

 

Present throughout the Watergate crisis, and unresolved by it, was the question of the amenability of the President to criminal prosecution prior to conviction upon impeachment.728 It was argued that the impeachment clause necessarily required indictment and trial in a criminal proceeding to follow a successful impeachment and that a President in any event was uniquely immune from indictment, and these arguments were advanced as one ground to deny enforcement of the subpoenas running to the President.729 Assertion of the same argument by Vice President Agnew was controverted by the Government, through the Solicitor General, but, as to the President, it was argued that for a number of constitutional [p.581]and practical reasons he was not subject to ordinary criminal process.730

 

Finally, most recently, the Court has definitively resolved one of the intertwined issues of presidential accountability. The President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties.731 The Court’s close decision was premised on the President’s “unique position in the constitutional scheme,” that is, it was derived from the Court’s inquiry of a “kind of ‘public policy’ analysis” of the “policies and principles that may be considered implicit in the nature of the President’s office in a system structured to achieve effective government under a constitutionally mandated separation of powers.”732 … Although the Court relied in part upon its previous practice of finding immunity for officers, such as judges, as to whom the Constitution is silent, although a long common–law history exists, and in part upon historical evidence, which it admitted was fragmentary and ambiguous,734 the Court’s principal focus was upon the fact that the President was distinguishable from all other executive officials. He is charged with a long list of “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity,”735 and diversion of his energies by concerns with private lawsuits would “raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.”736

 

Supplement: [P. 582, add to text following n.738:]

 

Unofficial Conduct.—In Clinton v. Jones,9 the Court, in a case of first impression, held that the President did not have qualified immunity from suit for conduct alleged to have taken place prior to his election to the Presidency, which would entitle him to delay of both the trial and discovery. The Court held that its precedents affording the President immunity from suit for his official conduct—primarily on the basis that he should be enabled to perform his duties effectively without fear that a particular decision might give rise to personal liability— were inapplicable in this kind of case. Moreover, the separation–of–powers doctrine did not require a stay of all private actions against the President. Separation of powers is preserved by guarding against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one of the coequal branches of the Government at the expense of another. However, a federal trial court tending to a civil suit in which the President is a party performs only its judicial function, not a function of another branch. No decision by a trial court could curtail the scope of the President’s powers. The trial court, the Supreme Court observed, had sufficient powers to accommodate the President’s schedule and his workload, so as not to impede the President’s performance of his duties. Finally, the Court stated its belief that allowing such suits to proceed would not generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation. Congress has the power, the Court advised, if it should think necessary to legislate, to afford the President protection.10 (CRS ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION: Article II — Table of Contents; From Cornel University Law School, Legal information Institute)

 

Sifting through the legalese I am assuming that means the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for a crime but can be subject to a civil suit as long as it does not interfere with his Executive Branch duties. After his term of Office has expired then he may be subject to criminal proceedings. This is the unofficial reason President Gerald Ford gave President Richard Milhous Nixon a full pardon from any crimes committed while in Office. A sitting President that breaks the law can receive the equivalent of a political indictment called impeachment in the House of Representatives. The Senate acts as the equivalent of a political jury with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acting as Judge. A Senate conviction ONLY means a removal from Office. Then criminal proceedings can be executed judicially.

 

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:

 

1.      The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.

 

2.      If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.

 

3.      If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.

 

4.      For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

 

 

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

 

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

 

The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives an official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office. For example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred.

 

 

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

 

The Origins of the Phrase

 

 

But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.

 

Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

 

Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “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 convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. …

 

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences 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 the society itself.”

 

… (High Crimes and Misdemeanors; From Constitutional Rights Foundation; © 2014 CRF-USA)

 

Finding a crime directly linked to a sitting POTUS is difficult for justice to be maintained. President Barack Hussein Obama has pushed the criminal envelope to the limits and appears near untouchable because of the blathering love of most of America’s media and the love of political power by the most Left Wing Democratic Party in American history. I am surprised the numerous “phony scandals” has not produced links to actual murder in the name of political power. Thank God so far, that extant of nefarious scandalous illegalities has not come up pertaining to President BHO.  

 

The CCC email I referenced at the beginning of these thoughts exposes the fact that the Islamic terrorists that attacked Libyan Embassy annex in Benghazi had acquired stolen “State Department-issued cell phones from our U.S. diplomatic facility”. The Islamic terrorists utilized these phones to coordinate their attack on the annex mission that resulted in the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The implication of the CCC email is that America’s Intelligence Community was listening to the Islamic attack coordination! This is another nail in the coffin of lies that exposes Obama and his Administration KNOWINGLY LYING to the American public just prior to the November 2012 election!

 

This is a ton of political evidence to bring Obama to an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives. BUT just like the Democrats in the Senate protected President Slick Willie Clinton from a Senate conviction, the same scenario would undoubtedly take place today in the Senate. EVEN if the GOP retakes the majority in the Senate there will be enough Democrats to ensure that a TWO-THIRDS majority would not be achieved to convict Obama and remove the most corrupt President from Office.

 

That leaves the only way for Obama to receive some justice for his criminal management of this Administration will be via the Civil Suit and/or criminal charges AFTER his term of Office ends in January 2017. AND there is a good chance Obama would escape that post-Presidential justice if a Democrat actually wins the 2016 election for President. Do you think someone like Hillary Clinton will allow civil or criminal discovery of Obama Administration law breaking to go on the public record? NO! A President Hillary would take a page out of the Republican playbook and give Obama a blanket full pardon preventing any kind of investigation from proceeding with the power of the independent Judicial Branch.

 

KNOWING these potential unjustified outcomes I say proceed with House impeachment proceedings at least after the 2014 election cycle to get something on the public record. Public revelations will make it more difficult for Hillary to become President and at the very least allow public opinion to force the Judicial Branch into action civilly or criminally.

 

JRH 6/15/14

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

New Benghazi Scandal Revelations

 

From: Office of CCC PAC

Sent: 6/14/2014 3:35 PM

 

Fox News has a stunning new report that shows that the Benghazi terrorists stole the State Department-issued cell phones from our U.S. diplomatic facility that they had attacked – and they used the phones to coordinate their attack with fellow terrorists.

But the most shocking aspect of the new report is that American intelligence agencies were listening in to the calls – and KNEW instantly that the attack on our compound in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

 

US Spy Agencies Here Benghazi Plans - Obama Lied

 

These stunning new reports are further proof that the Obama administration lied to us about the Benghazi attacks, and then tried to cover up the fact that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and not a political rally in response to a YouTube video.

Please, do not let those four Americans who lost their lives on that fateful night of September 11, 2012 be forgotten, swept under the rug by Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who don’t want the American people to know about the lies and cover ups surrounding that horrific terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Please review our TV ad below demanding that Barack Obama be held accountable for the Benghazi cover up, and if you want us to keep the pressure on the Obama administration for this scandal, make a contribution to our TV ad campaign – HERE.

 

VIDEO: TV Ad: Hold Obama Accountable for Benghazi Scandal

 

You can help us keep these ads running on the airwaves by making a contribution of any amount from as little as $5 up to the maximum allowed contribution of $5,000. 

To make a contribution online – JUST CLICK HERE.

Ever since the Benghazi terrorist attack the Obama administration, with significant backing from the liberal media, have attempted to hide the truth about what happened.  To cover their failures in combating terrorism, they told lies saying it was not a preplanned terrorist attack, even when they knew that to be an absolute falsehood.

 

Susan Rice- Benghazi Not Preplanned Attack

 

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and countless members of the Obama administration have lied, concealed and attempted to cover up not only the truth but their failures.  As has been his pattern of appeasement in the face of Islamic terrorism, Obama himself would not even call this an act of terrorism.

 

USA Today- BHO says Benghazi Not Terrorism

 

Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said it didn’t matter whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack or whether she and the Obama administration had lied about it.

 

Hillary- What Diff Does It Make

 

The Obama administration has dishonored those who lost their lives on that fateful night of September 11, 2012 and now they say it doesn’t matter because it happened “a long time ago.”

 

Jay Carney- Benghazi Happened Long ago

 

It’s time to hold the Obama administration accountable for their misdeeds.

 

We know the media will try to whitewash the seriousness of this issue.  We need to get the truth out as soon as possible, so please make a contribution to our TV ad campaign that holds Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton accountable – CONTRIBUTE HERE.

 

Again, you can contribute any amount from as little as $5 up to the maximum allowed amount of $5,000.

 

You can also make a contribution online here:

 

Conservative Campaign Committee
ATTN:  Benghazi Ad Campaign

P.O. Box 1585

Sacramento, CA 95812

_______________________________

The House should Investigate and Subpoena Obama Administration to the Hilt

John R. Houk

© June 15, 2014

_____________________________

New Benghazi Scandal Revelations

 

Paid for and authorized by the Conservative Campaign Committee.  Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Manager of Muslim Brotherhood International Investments


Barack & Malik Obama in Oval Office

John R. Houk

© August 28, 2013

 

Malik Obama operates the international investments of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Guess who Malik’s brother is?

 

VIDEO: Obama’s Brother Linked to Muslim Brotherhood

 

It is obvious that President Barak Hussein Obama was supportive of bringing down longtime ally Hosni Mubarak which led to a close election in Egyptian in which the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party won the Office of President in Egypt. Then President Mohamed Morsi proceeded with actions to make the totality of Sharia Law the law of the land in Egypt. Sharia excited MB adherents then began attacking Coptic Christians and their Churches.

 

In the meantime Morsi neglected Egypt’s economy. The significant amount of secular minded Muslims of Egypt then began a protest similar to that which brought Mubarak down. Obama kept his nose out of internal Egyptian affairs undoubtedly hoping Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood would cool the Sharia stuff and reawaken their social outreach which made the MB popular with Egyptians in the first place. That did not happen. The Egyptian military duly pulled a bloodless coup (which Obama denies) and appointed an interim President until new elections could place another civilian as President.

 

In the meantime MB acolytes have been confronting the pro-military secularist Muslims with violence which included more Coptic Christian murders and Church burnings. This has all the appearance of an Egyptian Civil War. Where does Obama come down on Egyptian turmoil? Obama seems keen to take out dictator Bashar al-Assad of Syria that would probably pave the way for a Sunni Radical Muslim regime in Syria; however Obama has been quite quiet on whether he favors the Pro-American Egyptian military or the anti-American/anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood adherents.

 

Frankly I see this as a smoking gun support policy of the Obama Administration to Radical Islam’s Muslim Brotherhood. This goes a long way to explaining the allowance of Muslim Brotherhood connected Huma Abedin to continue as a Deputy Chief of Staff while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Also there is a bit more light on the Obama cover-up of Benghazigate since Ambassador Stevens was in the midst of negotiating weapons to Syrian rebels (dominated by al Qaeda Islamists) but adds mystery to the reasoning of the suspicion that then President Morsi ordered the attack on the Benghazi American annex that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

 

Here is an article that might explain Obama’s reticence toward a proactive foreign policy toward Egypt.

 

JRH 8/28/13 (Hat Tip: Breaking All The Rules)

Please Support NCCR

I Dislike Obama as much as the Next Guy, BUT PUBLIC EXECUTION?


 

Secret Service Agents and BHO

 

 

John R. Houk

© June 2, 2012

 

Okay then, If Obama is ever impeached for knowingly becoming President while ineligible, do you believe that is a capital crime?

 

Frankly I do not! I believe it is a crime worthy of prison and maybe even a suspended sentence. Obama’s agenda is heinous for America; however it is a Socialist agenda that is supported by a large amount of Americans wittingly or unwittingly. I believe that such a conviction in the Senate should negate all Presidential privilege for Obama’s records past and present.

 

If after examination of Obama’s records a worse nefarious crime is uncovered such as actively selling out to a foreign nation or a foreign interest, then and only then, should a capital crime be on the table.

 

At any rate I am bringing this up because of a numbskull in Texas spoke of the impeachment process and Senate conviction should lead to a public execution of Barack Hussein Obama. That stirred enough trouble that allegedly the Secret Service paid the numbskull a visit.

 

WND reports the incident as if a Secret Service investigation was intimidation of a Birther proponent violating his civil rights. But I got to tell ya, such language as “beheading” Obama in public execution warrants a look-see by the Secret Service the agency assigned to protect the President of the United States of America.

 

Just as a bit of clarification I am sympathetic to the Birther cause. I just don’t believe it is a winnable cause as long as Barack Obama is in the Office of President.

 

Below is the WND story which includes the Youtube videos of Birther Rudy Davis.

 

JRH 6/2/12

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Video: ‘Birther’ gets visit from Secret Service

Men in suits ask him about family, weapons, searching his home

 

By Drew Zahn

June 1, 2012

WND

 

VIDEO: Obama Eligibility Activist LoneStar1776 Visited By Secret Service Agents

 

 

A Texas man and skeptic of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president has posted a video on YouTube revealing two investigators, reportedly from the Secret Service, questioning him at his home.

 

Rudy Davis, known also as “LoneStar1776″ on YouTube.com, posted video of the inquiry the day after he had uploaded another video in which he suggested Obama, after being convicted of treason for usurping the highest office the land, be executed for his crime.

 

When two men in dark suits showed up at his door the next day, Davis told them, “I think I know why you guys are here.”

 

Video of the exchange shows Davis explaining his belief that Obama is ineligible to be president and clarifying that he only wished the judicial system to execute Obama “once he has been convicted in a court of law.”

 

“OK,” the first investigator replied, “but you don’t mean to assassinate him?”

“No, sir,” Davis replied. “I don’t want to hurt anybody. I just want truth and justice in America.”

 

Show members of Congress how many others demand “truth and justice” in America in the name of constitutional integrity.

 

The investigators then began a series of “pertinent” questions they explained were required because, “We do have a job to do,” including the following:

 

§  “Have you ever been in the military?”

 

§  “Any handgun training, martial arts?”

 

§  “Do you belong to any groups or associations?”

 

§  “Have you ever traveled out to see the president?”

 

§  “Do you have any criminal history?”

 

§  “Do you own any weapons? All your weapons are registered?”

 

§  “Have you ever been hospitalized for mental [illness]? Family history of mental illness?”

 

§  “A possible search of your home – are you OK with that?”

 

§  “In the past year, how many places have you traveled to?”

 

§  “Do you have any siblings? Would you mind telling me who they are? What about parents? Can we talk to them?”

 

§  “Where do you work?”

 

Multiple times the investigator also asked, “Do you understand that threatening to harm someone is a crime as well?”

 

“I understand that,” Davis said, “but I have not threatened to harm [anyone].”

 

In Davis’ previous video, which presumably prompted the investigation, Davis had cited the example of England’s Oliver Cromwell beheading King Charles I as an example of what should be done to Obama.

 

“Once [Obama] is convicted in a court of law,” Davis said, “we don’t need to send him off to prison, we don’t need to send him out of the country, we need to behead him publicly.”

 

Why publicly?

 

“To show everybody that’s what happens to you when you come in to America and you lie and you forge and you fraud and you take over commander in chief when you know you’re not eligible,” Davis explained. “America doesn’t put up with that.

 

The first video, in which Davis advocated beheading, can be seen below:

 

VIDEO: Public Beheading

 

 

At one point, one of the investigators said, “We’d prefer if you didn’t film us,” but Davis asserted it was his property and his right to do so.

 

Still, in yet a third, follow-up video, Davis discounted the idea that the agents were attempting to be “intimidating.”

 

“They were very nice and cordial, and they were doing their job,” Davis said.

 

Davis also concluded, “Promoting the truth is a patriotic thing, even if it brings the Secret Service to your door.”

 

Does anyone really know where Obama is from? Find out the startling truth from New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi.

______________________________

I Dislike Obama as much as the Next Guy, BUT PUBLIC EXECUTION?

John R. Houk

© June 2, 2012

______________________________

Video: ‘Birther’ gets visit from Secret Service

 

Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, “Popcorn and a (world) view.”

 

© Copyright 1997-2012 All Rights Reserved. WND.com Inc.