Is tide turning? Liberal writer supports Obama impeachment ~ By Allen West

The most well-known examples of Obama changing or issuing laws with the stroke of a pen by issuing executive orders include:

• Delaying the employer mandate in Obamacare

•  Changing the types of plans available under Obamacare

•  Ensuring abortions would be covered under Obamacare

•  Enacting key provisions of the failed Dream Act to halt deportations of illegal immigrants

•  Enacting stricter gun-control measures

•  Sealing presidential records

•  Creating an economic council

•  Creating a domestic policy council

•  Changing pay grades

“Never before in our history had a president done these things,” Hentoff mused. He is baffled that Obama should escape such scrutiny when former President Bill Clinton faced impeachment just for being “a lousy liar.”

Of course, there are many people on the Conservative side of the political spectrum that would like to see Barack Hussein Obama impeached, and they could list many reasons that are very convincing. And yes, we've even been hearing that there are liberals on the left that also want to impeach the President, and in this column by Allen West, we learn who one of them is.

However, even if the Republicans can take back the U.S. Senate and keep control of the House, I still highly doubt that there will ever be an impeachment of the President. Nor do I believe the President would resign before an impeachment as former President "Tricky Dick" Nixon did. I think that one of the considerations that leaders in Congress would have to contemplate would be if Obama was out of the White House, would that actually improve things? The thought of Uncle Joe Biden becoming the President would make most of us shudder. I just can't see anybody wanting that to happen, and it is analogous to jumping from a pot of boiling oil into the fire.

In fact, I'll be praying that Republican candidates for the Senate or House of Representatives stay far away from even mentioning impeachment (or the President's eligibility issues!). That, I believe, is one of the reasons the old establishment GOP seems to be prone to keep Tea Party candidates off the ballots.

But then, I have a caveat. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I do have this concern that upon the end of Obama's final term in office, that he may not be above finding a way to stay in office due to a national emergency. I'm just sayin'...


Is tide turning? Liberal writer supports Obama impeachment

Allen West

By Allen West

January 23, 2014

From AllenBWest.com

In recent fundraising efforts, Democrats have invoked the “I” word – the threat of impeachment — to try and rally liberal progressives as we approach the key 2014 mid-term elections.

Democrats are working hard to portray this as a full speed effort of conservatives. But it’s not just those center-right who are concerned with President Obama’s executive overreach.

In an interview with World Net Daily, famed Village Voice journalist Nat Hentoff called Obama “the most dangerous and destructive president ever” and “the worst state…the country has ever been in.”

~~~ READ MORE at AllenBWest.com ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Should president have Net 'kill switch'? ~ By Joseph Farah

Mr. Obama has wasted no time implementing this destructive, invasive, oppressive worldview where the Internet is concerned. He is, after all, the man who previously sought the power of a collective "off" switch for the Web – in the form of a Senate bill that would give the White House "the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet."

~ Phil Elmore, February 4, 2010, in "Obama's totalitarian plans for the Net"

The above quote was provided to set the stage for Joseph's column. There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that the man in the Oval Office along with his minions have a lot of reason to be able to disconnect the Internet. I have to agree with Joseph that it is doubtful that there would be any national security scenario that would provide a good "excuse" to hit the "kill switch." I guess Senator Joe Lieberman must not be aware of US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team) under Dept. of Homeland Security. I think they have the cyber-security threats under control, and there would be absolutely NO reason for anyone to need to hit the "Kill Switch" button.  Well, not unless.... ummm... they wanted to cut off all communication so that people wouldn't be able to find out what is going on in a "national emergency." In other words, as Joseph talks about, it's a 1st Amendment issue ONLY.  Just sayin'...

Is the answer to security risks shutting down the nation's No. 1 communications mechanism?

It would seem to me that in almost any national emergency I could envision, the Internet would be a vital resource for every American. Why would any president want it shut down?

I think what we really need is a "kill switch" for Washington's relentless power grabs.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: June 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I guess I'm just an old First Amendment dinosaur – like my friend Nat Hentoff.

I seem to be the only person in the world truly alarmed by a new U.S. Senate bill (not one from the USSR, mind you, but from the U.S. Senate) that would give the president of the United States the authority to shut down the Internet in times of emergency.

Does that seem right to you?

As I understand it, the president already had absolute authority to direct the oil cleanup effort in the Gulf of Mexico under legislation approved by Congress. How's that working out for everyone?

Do you honestly trust this president of the United States or, for that matter, any president of the United States with that kind of censorship power?

For 230 years, the president didn't have the legislative power to pull the kill switch on the nation's newspapers or, later, the nation's radio airwaves, or, later still, the nation's television signals.

The Internet represents so much more than all of those media combined. It is quickly becoming the central communication resource for everyone. It will soon rival even the telephone for personal communications.

I'm trying to imagine the kind of emergency that would justify the president blinding and deafening 300 million Americans.

Can you figure out what that kind of emergency would look like?

Can you figure out how cutting off all communications would be a positive thing, a life-saving thing, a safety and security measure?

I sure can't.

But I can consult the congressional record to see what people like Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., had to say in justifying this draconian legislation.

He explained that these measures would allow the government "to preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people."

Huh?

OK, he elaborated: "For all its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies – cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

Of course, Lieberman has a lot of knowledge and experience in this area. You might remember, he ran on a presidential ticket with a guy who claimed to have invented the Internet.

I fully acknowledge the threats posed to our country from cyber-warfare. But the ramifications of the president being handed a "kill switch" to disable parts or potentially all of the Internet are far more grave than the threats posed by any enemies.

Terrorists and criminals have also used telephones in plotting their evil deeds. Yet I haven't heard anyone suggest the president have a "kill switch" for all telephone service.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama's assassinations of Americans ~ By Nat Hentoff

Rather than going in and capturing high-value terrorists, we've been sending in pilotless drones and killing them. That's a good thing in the War on Terror, right? Save money on holding and trying them. Well, maybe not exactly. Nat Hentoff talks about the fact that some of the terrorist "hit" targets are American citizens.

Focusing on American targets, Ben Wizner, a staff attorney of the ACLU National Security Project, in a Feb. 4 press release emphasizes: "It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.'"

By Nat Hentoff

Posted: February 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

On Sept. 14 in Somalia, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a long-sought link between al-Qaida and its East African allies, was in a vehicle bombed by a helicopter flying from an American ship off the Somali coast. As Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick reported in a front-page Washington Post story – "Under Obama, more targeted killings than captures in counterterrorism efforts" (Feb. 13) – another U.S. helicopter "set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of (Nabhan's) remains for DNA verification."

That news story offered a telling consequence: "The opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever." And a senior military officer, careful not to give his name, lamented: "We wanted to take a prisoner. It was not a decision that we made."

That decision came from Obama, our commander in chief, who, as I've previously reported, has authorized in his first year more such assassinations than Bush and Cheney in their last years. The result, as the Washington Post noted, "has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions."

After all, there can be no fierce arguments about whether a charred corpse should be tried in a federal civilian court or by a military commission. Some American citizens, believed to be highly connected to al-Qaida or its affiliates, are also on these "hit" lists. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, pilotless U.S. drone planes have perpetrated these assassinations.

These are highly classified operations, but thanks to the First Amendment, an increasing number of these summary executions have been revealed in the Washington Post and on the Internet. There have already been probing, through unanswered questions, from the ACLU, human-rights groups and other constitutionalists about this corollary damage to such an anchor of our rule of law as the separation of powers when the executive branch alone decides who shall die instantly rather than having been permitted time-consuming and costly due process of law. And there are no defense attorneys to raise objections, even when an American citizen is marked for oblivion.

Resistance to these terminal operations – which often inadvertently but effectively end the lives of innocent civilians – intensified in February when a high-ranking American official at last confirmed that targeted assassination is a legitimate American way of self-defense.

During a Feb. 3 hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified that the U.S. intelligence community, when dealing with direct terrorist threats to the United States, does "take direct action against terrorists" (Washington Post, Feb. 4).

And "if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that." Blair – sensitive to the Obama administration's delicate use of language in these matters – did not use the word "assassinations," but the message was lethal enough.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com