Daily Dump

Who said, "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas." Joe Biden or Joe Stalin? (See answer at bottom)


I just finished reading the very excellent response to Joe Biden's inflammatory comments when he compared grassroots activists to "terrorists" and "hostage takers." While I whole heartedly agree with all of the sentiments expressed in their reply, I don't see any future in meeting with the Vice-President for the purpose of civil discourse.

Joe Biden has made a career out of being an empty suit and a buffoon. In my studied opinion, any attempt at an apology on his part would hold about as much credibility as, well, . . . comparisons fail me . . . . Joe Biden!

Let's face it, he is the best insurance policy that Barry Hussein could buy. But that's just my opinion.

ST. LOUIS TEA PARTY CONDEMNS "TERRORIST" REMARKS FROM VICE-PRESIDENT BIDEN, LAWMAKERS

August 3, 2011

It was revealed Monday by Politico that Vice-President Joe Biden, U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, and other lawmakers referred to the tea party as "terrorists" during a heated discussion on the debt ceiling debate. From Politico:

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists, ” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

The St. Louis Tea Party condemns the comparison of private citizens who desire fiscal restraint in Washington to murderous terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans world-wide.

"It's reprehensible to me that our Vice-President and other elected leaders would make such a grotesque analogy when in just over a month we will mark the tenth anniversary of the worst attack on American soil," remarks Dana Loesch, Co-Founder of the St. Louis Tea Party.

"It's an insult to Americans and the Democratic process to refer to dissenting Americans in such a way," says Bill Hennessy, St. Louis Tea Party Co-Founder. "Are our elected leaders so out of touch with what terrorism actually is that they are willing to defame, by way of analogy, a vast group of people? We have members who lost friends to terrorists in the 9/11 attacks. We do not have any members who have lost friends due to peaceful protest."

"It is tone-deaf and offensive," says Jen Ennenbach, media liaison of the St. Louis Tea Party. Other grassroots activists have expressed equal dismay at having their peaceful efforts to raise awareness of government excess compared to the likes of Jihadis. “The fact that the Vice President, or any other elected official would say this of American Citizens clearly shows they are still living in an alternate reality.”

The St. Louis Tea Party asks that Vice-President Biden, Rep. Doyle, and other lawmakers who have defamed grassroots activists by calling them "terrorists," "hostage takers," and other pejoratives to apologize for their careless remarks. The St. Louis Tea Party also extends to Vice-President Biden an invitation to meet with them and other grassroots groups so he can see how peaceful dissent is a cornerstone of, not a threat to, our Republic.

(Answer: Both said it, Joseph Stalin said it first and then Joe Biden plagiarized it.)

Tea Party Wants Boehner, Obama Fired

If House Speaker John Boehner or his senior leadership team thought they had the support of the Tea Party movement, they better think again. An internal poll of the largest group in the movement, the Tea Party Patriots, found that they are dissatisfied with the House leaders, Boehner in particular, and simply can't stand President Obama.
Co-Director Jenny Beth Martin told Whispers bluntly: "We're really not satisfied with any of them."

This is keeping me from losing hope:
--81.5 percent are not satisfied with the House GOP leadership.

--74.1 percent, asked if they want a new House speaker, said yes or maybe.

--71.7 percent are not satisfied with the performance of the House.

--97.6 percent are not satisfied with the performance of the Senate.

--98.8 percent are not satisfied with Obama's performance.

Law and Border

A Supreme Court victory for Arizona and the nation

By Kris Kobach National Review, July 4, 2011

On May 26, for the first time in 35 years, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion on whether states may take action to stop illegal immigration. In Chambers of Commerce's v. Whiting, the Supreme Court upheld the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 against multiple challenges claiming that it was preempted by federal law. This act requires all employers in the state to use E-Verify Internet system to check the work authorization of new hires, and it penalizes employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens by suspending their business licenses. (E-Verify, run by the federal government, checks data supplied by immigrants against Homeland Security and Social Security records to make sure they are eligible for employment.)

It was a 5-3 decision, with the conservative justices, plus Anthony Kennedy, siding with Arizona. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because the Obama Justice Department had weighed in against Arizona when she was solicitor general.

The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to take the case and participated in the oral argument on the losing side. The Obama administration has made no secret of its hostility toward Arizona and other states that want to use state powers to restore the rule of law in immigration. The Justice Department's pending lawsuit against Arizona's SB 1970, a 2010 law governing police procedures when officers encounter illegal aliens, is another example of this hostility.

Arizona's victory in the high court also gave an unmistakable green light to the other states. A week later, the Alabama legislature passed HB 56 - the strongest law against illegal immigration that any state has enacted to date - and on June 9, Gov. Robert Bentley signed it into law. This measure, known as the Benson-Harmmon Act after its main sponsors, includes everything that Arizona has done on the subject, plus a good deal more: prohibiting illegal aliens from attending public universities in the state, providing for civil forfeiture of vehicles used to knowingly transport illegal aliens, prohibiting landlords from knowingly harboring illegal aliens in apartments and required public schools to count the number of illegal aliens receiving a free k-12 education at taxpayer expense.

Behind Alabama and Arizona are a growing number of other states that have taken significant steps down the same road, including Missouri, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma and Indiana. And the list of states seeking to deter illegal immigration is sure to grow in the future.

These states are motivated by two powerful forces: public frustration over lax enforcement of federal immigration laws, and the fiscal burden that illegal immigration imposes on tax payers. The Federation for American Immigration Reform calculates that the net fiscal burden caused by illegal immigration is $100 billion per year for all levels of government combined. That's a net figure, taking into account any taxes that illegal aliens may pay.

About $80 billion of that total falls at the state and local levels - meaning that state and local governments have to pick up the tab when federal immigration laws go unenforced. The biggest items are free K-12 education for children in illegal-alien households; costs incurred through the arrest, trial, and imprisonment of illegal aliens who commit additional crimes; and medical costs imposed on public budgets by illegal aliens. In effect, the federal government's failure to enforce immigration laws is a massive unfunded mandate. And unlike the federal government, nearly all of the states have a constitutional obligation to balance their budgets, so these costs cannot be ignored.

If a state can encourage illegal aliens to go home, however, the fiscal burden can be reduced dramatically. State laws like Alabama's and Arizona's are based on the principle of attrition through enforcement: If a state ratchets up the level of enforcement, illegal aliens will weigh the costs and benefits of remaining unlawfully, and will leave. Using calculations from the study by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, we can expect that for every illegal-alien-headed household that returns to its country of origin, on average, taxpayers realize a net fiscal benefit of $19,588 per year.

Arizona's success in encouraging illegal aliens to self-deport has been impressive thus far. Between 2008 and 2010, the population of illegal aliens in the United States decreased by 7 percent, but in Amazonia it decreased by 18 percent. This exodus is widely attributed to two law-enforcement efforts: the implementation of the Legal Arizona Workers Act, beginning Jan. 1, 2008, and the contemporaneous enforcement of Arizona's 2005 anti-smuggling law by Sheriff Joe Arpaino of Maricopa County, Which contains the majority of Arizona's population and is the hub of alien-smuggling operations into the United States.

While it is undoubtedly true that some of Arizona's illegal aliens simply packed their bags and moved to states such as California, where liberal law's welcome them, it is also true that many left the United States altogether. This was dramatically illustrated in early 2008, when legislators from the Mexican border state of Sonora sent a delegation north to Arizona. Their mission? To complain to Arizona officials that the Legal Arizona Workers Act was sending too many Mexican nationals home too quickly, and that Sonora could not handle the burden on its public services and infrastructure.

Although the Supreme Court's decision in Whiting did not directly address Arizona's SB1070, it greatly boost the prospects of success not only for that law, but also for immigration-enforcement bills in a number of other states. Realizing this, the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), and other open borders groups launched into damage-control mode in the wake of the decision. They tried to spin the Whiting opinion as an extremely narrow holding that has no bearing on other laws or other states.

The ACLU's challenge to such laws has rested principally on the concept of "conflict preemption." This concerns cases in which a state or local law poses an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress's objectives as spelled out in federal law. If that happens, the state law is invalid.

The problem for the ACLU is that there is no federal law prohibiting states and cities from taking steps to stop illegal immigration. On the contrary, there are numerous federal statutes inviting states assistance in the enforcement of immigration laws. So the ACLU is reduced to arguing that the state and local laws are somehow in "tension" with federal law, even if there is no conflict on the face of the statutes.

The Whiting decision made it clear that that argument will no longer fly: "Implied preemption analysis does not justify a 'free-wheeling judicial inquiry into whether a state statute is in tension with federal objectives'; such an endeavor 'would undercut the principle that it is Congress rather than the courts that preempts state law.'" And that's precisely the point. Congress has never acted to prohibit state and local laws that discourage illegal immigration, so the open-borders Left is asking the courts to do it instead.

Their favorite argument to demonstrate "tension" with federal law is to declare that Congress intended for immigration laws to be enforced uniformly across the land. They claim that aggressively enforced state laws in place in places such as Arizona disrupt this uniformity. and therefore the courts should throw them out. But the Supreme Court emphatically rejected this argument, stating: "Congress expressly preserved the ability of the States to impose their own sanctions through licensing; that - like our federal system in general - necessarily entails the prospect of some departure from homogeneity."

Perhaps most important, the Court also endorsed the constitutional doctrine of concurrent enforcement, on which Arizona, Alabama, and other states have relied in drafting their laws. If a state prohibits an activity that is already prohibited by federal law, then state and federal law are concurrent and no conflict can exist. The Supreme Court applied this doctrine and observed approvingly that "the Arizona law ... trace[s] federal law."

In particular, the Supreme Court gave Arizona high marks for adopting the definitions and standards of federal law verbatim. "Arizona went the extra mile in ensuring that its law closely tracks [federal statutory] provisions in all respects. The Arizona law begins by adopting the federal definition of who qualifies as an "unauthorized alien.' . . . Not only that, the Arizona law expressly provides that state investigators must verify the work authorization of an allegedly unauthorized alien with the Federal Government, and 'shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. '"

This was by design. The same deference to federal definitions and federal determinations of immigration status also appears in Alabama's Beason-Hammon Act, Arizona's SB 1070, Missouri's illegal-immigration act of 2007, and just about every other properly drafted state or local immigration law on the books. It is therefore highly likely that these laws will withstand any legal challenge in the wake of Whiting.

But perhaps the best indication of how sweeping the Whiting opinion was came eleven days later, when the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Third Circuit in Lonzano v. City of Hazleton. In that case, the Third Circuit had struck down a municipal ordinance in Hazleton, Pa., prohibiting the hiring of unauthorized aliens by employers and the harboring of illegal aliens by landlords. The Supreme court erased the Third Circuit's decision and directed it to reconsider the case in light of Whiting. Importantly, the Supreme Court remanded the entire decision, not just the employment part, for reconsideration. In other words, although the law at issue in Whiting specifically concerned the employment of unauthorized aliens, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court were applicable to any state or local law concerning illegal immigration.

In summary, the road ahead for state and local laws deterring illegal immigration looks very good - at least in court. Yet some Republicans in Congress seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Treating the states as nothing more than a proving ground for "real" reform at the federal level, they are willing to sell out Arizona and the other states in return for modest improvements to federal law.

Specifically, they have approached the pro-amnesty U.S. Chamber of Commerce to see whether a deal can now be reached for a bill to mandate E-Verify usage nationwide. The Chamber, long opposed to enforcement of immigration laws in the work-place, has demanded a heavy price in return for is assent - the removal of states from the field.

H.R. 2164, drafted under the watchful supervision of the Chamber and introduced on June 14 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R. Tex.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, achieves exactly that. It prohibits the states from suspending the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. In other words, it stabs Arizona in the back right after the state's victory in the Supreme Court. Nothing would please the Chamber and the Obama administration more.

The members of Congress who back Smith's bill suffer from the same delusion that grips all too many politicians in Washington: that the ultimate solution to any problem lies in passing a law in Congress. What they fail to grasp is that the political will to enforce immigration laws, and the resources to do so, are far more important. If the federal immigration laws that are already on the books were adequately enforced, there would be no illegal immigration problem.

Aliens have self-deported from Arizona not because they think U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will start enforcing federal laws more aggressively, but because they know the state and local officials are very serious about enforcing the state laws. When Obama's Department of Homeland Security began halting worksite enforcement raids across the country, Arizona's employer-sanctions of the law was kicking in. By the end of 2009, Maricopa County officials had investigated and/or raided more than two dozen businesses suspected of knowing hiring unauthorized aliens. Word gets around very quickly when a law is being enforced, and many illegal aliens left the state on their own initiative. The same will happen in Alabama in September, when the state's new law goes into effect.

To take the states out of the enforcement game would be the height of foolishness. ICE has a mere 6,000 interior (i.e. non-border) enforcement agents to cover the entire country. In contrast, state and local governments can bring nearly 800,000 law-enforcement officers to bear on the problem. That is why the Chamber of Commerce is so eager to pass Smith's bill and end the threat of state-level enforcement. That is also why the Obama administration and the ACLU launched a legal jihad against Arizona - to send a message to the other states.

With Whiting, the Supreme Court has dealt a decisive blow to the legal position of the Obama administration and the AC:U. Now is the time for the states to press forward and make additional progress in reducing illegal immigration.

Hopefully, after 2012, a new administration in Washington will be interested in vigorously enforcing immigration laws and will recognize that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the federal government to achieve that goal alone. The only way to end illegal immigration is for both the federal government and the states to take to the field, working together to restore the rule of law.

Conservative Government America’s Only Hope

Conservative Government America’s Only HopeHold The House.

Take back the Senate and the White House.

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

If you like what’s going on in Washington, DC these days, you’re going to love the next 16 months, or so.

What we are seeing are the differences between the two major political parties in America laid bare for all to see. The factions within each party are also coming to the fore, all with bared fangs.

Politics in America is not some kid’s game. This IS a blood sport. It is as old as the country itself.

Americans have revolted twice. Once against Great Britain. The second was the “War for Southern Independence,” commonly referred to as the “Civil War.” We didn’t LIKE either. Had we been able to settle our differences, in both cases, in the nation’s government neither war would have happened. Americans are deeply aware of that fact.

So, we fight like cats and dogs in the houses of our government with words and phrases – along, of course, with strutting and preening before the cameras and microphones of what passes for the news media in this country -- and yes, even the world press.

Understand, dear reader, we do this rather than go at each other as we did at, oh, say Manassas, Antietam, Shiloh, Gettysburg and other well known fields that ran with American blood -- simply because we could not settle our dispute in the nation’s government.

It is clear to all that an extremely great struggle is going on in Washington today. The battle over the debt ceiling and spending cuts is only a sideshow. The fight is over whether America will continue on the socialist path, which is destroying the nation, and impoverishing its people, or, will America return to its rightful place as a constitutional “representative republic” as the founders of the nation intended.

The bottom line is this: America either lives or dies as a result of the death struggle going on in Washington today. Either freedom dies – or socialism dies. They cannot co-exist. One must terminate the other. No quarter can be allowed.

For freedom to have even a chance at survival in America, we must have a conservative government.

It is clear what socialism can and will do -- and HAS already done -- to this country. There should no longer be any doubt. It must be defeated.

Conservatives need to target the US Senate in the 2012 elections. Democrats will have some 23 seats up for reelection. Conservatives must see that those seats go to conservative candidates.

At the same time, conservatives must maintain control of the US House of Representatives AND replace a goodly portion of the so-called “establishment” Republicans with rock solid conservative republicans. It is plain to see that today’s House does not have the spine it needs to buck the socialist agenda of the democrats.

And Obama MUST GO! He has been the most divisive president since Lincoln. The man is a socialist, plain and simple. He and his socialist agenda have driven America so far down the path to Third-World status that it will take us at least a generation to climb back to where we were in 2008.

Do not underestimate Obama’s chances to win in 2012. With his campaign organization, his money, his shock troops (The Labor Unions), his propaganda machine (The Mainstream Media) and every minority group in America supporting him, he will be a formidable candidate -- no matter what the polls say about his popularity.

Taking America back from the socialists will be a humongous task. But the alternative is unthinkable.

Obama’s disengagement of America from its leadership role in the world has lead to nothing but chaos. The Mediterranean states, and a goodly portion of the European states, are in various states of division and chaos. And it will only get worse until America shows the leadership the world is waiting for and counting on.

It will not come as long as Obama is in the Oval Office. In fact, the mess America, herself, is in will not be resolved as long as Obama remains President of the USA.

So. We have a three-step solution to take back America from the socialists. Replace “establishment republicans” with conservative republicans in the US House, replace 23 democrat senators with conservative senators in the US Senate – and – toss Obama and his minions out of the Oval Office and replace HIM with a conservative.

Like any plan that looks good on paper it is immensely more difficult to implement. But – it IS the solution.

Conservatives have less than a year and a half to get this done. Hadn’t we ought to be about it?

J. D. Longstreet

A Small Business Owner Responds to Paul Krugman, Nobel Ignoramus.

by Wayen Allyn Root


Paul Krugman, the Nobel Ignoramus, recently wrote a column for the New York Times entitled, "The Angry Rich." According to Krugman wealthy people are angry because money to which they feel “entitled” is being taken away. Krugman is outing himself as a socialist by admitting publicly that he considers the idea of wanting to keep more of your own money an “entitlement.” Radical leftists lie and distort to incite class envy. They call it “greedy” to want to keep money that you earned, but it’s not greedy to demand that government steal it from you and redistribute it to those who never earned it. That’s an interesting interpretation of “greed.”



Krugman forgets to tell his readers that this "angry minority" pays the "disproportionate majority" of the taxes. The top 1% of earners pays almost 40% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 70% of taxes. The top 25% pays almost 100% of taxes. Damn right the rich are angry. It’s always easy to vote for tax increases on someone else- especially when it gets redistributed to you.



Yes, we’re angry. We are tired of being scapegoats and punching bags. We are tired of politicians taking our hard-earned money and wasting it on bloated government spending; more government employees who receive guaranteed jobs and obscene pensions for life; unnecessary wars; vote-buying earmarks; corrupt bailouts to campaign contributors; and trillion dollar handouts described as stimulus.



Krugman reports that these are desperate times for people who have lost their jobs or homes. This is true. But who will create the jobs to help all these people? Assuming they still have the money- small business. Entrepreneurs who pursue the "American Dream” do so by creating businesses, creating jobs, and spending money on equipment and raw materials. They make their employees and the employees of the places they buy from, rich too. How many millionaires did Google, Cisco, Apple, and Microsoft mint? How much money did their employees spend? How many Americans were enriched by all this success?



Krugman says “real” rage and suffering isn’t found among the rich. In his socialist mind it’s only found among the poor. Well Mr. Krugman, my friends are mostly small business owners. They aren’t rich like your limo-driving, private jet-flying, Gucci-wearing, leftist, New York Times readers. My friends are “working rich.” And they are suffering in record numbers. They are losing their executive jobs, never to find another. They are struggling to make payrolls, so their employees can pay the mortgage- while they themselves forgo a paycheck. They are losing their small businesses, along with everything they’ve worked years to build. They are spending their retirement money on their own survival, or their children’s college education. They are desperate- you just don’t notice up there on the top floors of the New York Times.



This is precisely why there are no jobs- “the working rich” are in trouble, under siege and being squeezed by the economy and government. And as long as people like Mr. Krugman are in power, there will be no new jobs. The truth is socialists like Obama and Krugman wouldn’t know how to create a job, if it hit them in the face. The only way they know how to create jobs is by taking $40 million from taxpayers’ pockets to create twenty temporary jobs at a cost of $2 million each. Thank goodness we have Nobel Prize winners like Krugman and Obama to save us.



It’s small business owners earning $250,000 to $500,000, not the titans on Wall Street, who will be hit by Obama’s gigantic tax increases. Yet Obama and his leftist cronies chose to bailout Wall Street and give sweetheart deals to the big shot execs at AIG, Goldman Sachs, and GM. It’s no coincidence that Obama was the biggest beneficiary of their campaign contributions. During all this time, Obama did nothing for small business. Now Krugman and Obama demand higher taxes on “the rich” and use Wall Street titans as the scapegoat to hide who will really be paying the tab.



Krugman denigrates and taunts people who make $250,000 to $500,000. “They can afford higher taxes” is his leftist chant. But take another $50,000 in taxes from a family making $400,000 and you've just put two of their employees making $30,000 a year directly in the unemployment line. You'll spend about $400 a week in unemployment insurance for the next 99 weeks for each of those employees, for a net loss to the government of $30,000 or so. That kind of economic model only works in books written by Karl Marx, and taught by Nobel Ignoramus Prize winners.



Krugman calls the rich in America “the world’s luckiest people.” Are you joking? The majority of the rich you are referring to, toil at their small businesses 60+ hours a week, sacrificing family and quality of life. Unlike government employees, they have no short workdays, no 3-day weekends, no summers off, no guaranteed jobs for life, no bloated pensions.



These heroes of the business world that Krugman derisively calls “rich” and “greedy” took on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to fund their educations, then risked hundreds of thousands more to start their small businesses. Their reward for all this hard-work, sacrifice and risk-taking from socialists like Obama and Krugman? A greedy government that demands more and more in return for…nothing. Sorry Mr Krugman, I don’t need partners like that. Usually partners like that are called organized crime.



Mr. Krugman says the rich aren’t willing to sacrifice. Not true. The rich are willing to sacrifice, but they are not willing to be sacrificed, while the American Dream is forever destroyed.



Krugman says the rich are angry and out for revenge. Well that’s not hard to understand when a productive minority of risk-takers and job creators is being lynched by a dysfunctional group of socialists that believes keeping some of your own money is an "entitlement." Soon we intend to insure that Nobel Ignoramus socialists like Krugman and Obama and are never again allowed anywhere near the American economy.

RNC At Work

Today, Karl Rove was seen at the RNC headquarters getting more ammunition to toss at conservative candidates. I seems he has exhausted his supply of slings and arrows and will resort to old fashioned "mud" slinging.

Talk of Impeachment


By Alan Caruba

*****************
The last time I recall the nation being this concerned over the state of the presidency was during the Lewinsky scandal and ensuing impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Before that it was during the slow revelation of the Watergate scandal that finally forced Richard Nixon’s resignation. On Thursday, July 22, an editorial opinion by Tom Tancredo in The Washington Times called for the impeachment of President Obama. A column by Jeffrey Kuhner was titled “President’s socialist takeover must be stopped.”



Tancredo, a former five-term member of Congress, is now the chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation. Kuhner, a Times columnist, is president of the Edmund Burke Institute.



Burke, an Irish orator, philosopher and politician (1729-1797) is best known for his warning that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", but he also said, “Men have no right to put the well-being of the present generation wholly out of the question. Perhaps the only moral trust with any certainty in our hands is the care of our own time.”



It is the conceit of every generation that those that preceded it were less sophisticated, but it is clear from Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper number 65, published in the New York Packet on March 7, 1788, that the question of impeachment as defined in the Constitution was being debated, the subtleties of the issue were not only understood by the author, but by Americans of his era as well.



Hamilton wrote: “A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those 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 the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.”



The removal of Barack Hussein Obama from the office of the presidency is increasingly spoken of among concerned Americans and now has risen to the level of discussion in print. The two Times articles enumerated the reasons why.



Tancredo began by reminding us that “every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position” must swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”



“For the first time in American history,” said Tancredo, “we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.”

Going straight to the heart of the issue confronting all Americans, Tancredo said, “Our president is an enemy of the Constitution and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security, and our personal freedoms.”



Kuhner wrote that Obama is “slowly, piece by piece, erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there yet, but he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances, subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law…”

Tancredo listed what he regards as impeachable offenses which the Constitution describes as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment has twice been attempted in the nation’s past and neither succeeded. Among those cited by Tancredo are:



# Disenfranchising General Motors and Chrysler bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers;



# Implementing a third ban on off-shore drilling despite the rejection by two federal courts.



# The appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it.



# The failure to defend the nation’s southern border against an invasion of illegal aliens.Tancredo could have added the questionable demand that BP create a $20 billion fund to cover the cost of the oil cleanup and the losses incurred by those affected by it. That was entirely without any previous historic or legal precedent.



The creation, too, of an entire level of presidential advisors (czars) within the White House who appear to have been granted greater powers than Secretaries of various federal departments in determining policy is highly questionable. Few underwent any examination by the Senate.



Kuhner warned about Obamacare’s funding of abortion, along with the creation of “a command-and-control health care system, “a frontal assault on property rights”, the new financial reform act that he deemed “essentially nationalize the big banks” while noting the same effect on the financial sector, and the student loan industry. He too noted the takeover of the automakers.

Kuhner warned that Obama’s “comprehensive immigration reform” would grant amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal aliens “would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty.” The Obama Justice Department’s decision to sue Arizona for its immigration law was deemed as “siding with criminals against his fellow Americans” and desecrated his constitutional oath.





Kuhner deemed it “treasonous.”Kuhner urged that, should the Republicans win back Congress in November “formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration” should be launched.





I doubt that even Republican control of Congress in both houses would undertake impeachment proceedings against Obama. That did not go well when it was tried against Clinton. At best a Congress in which they controlled either or both houses would become a bulwark against further predations by the first Marxist president ever elected in America and, hopefully, the last.





Alan Caruba

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

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.



© Alan Caruba, 2010