Further Motion on Impeachment

Seven Reasons To Impeach Obama

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, author of “Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment,” continues to use his book to build the political support needed to impeach Obama. In an interview with WND, McCarthy offers seven indictments, beginning with the President’s willful refusal to execute the laws faithfully and usurpation of the legislative authority of the Congress. McCarthy said there’s a simple reason he put these allegations first.

“When I was a prosecutor, what you always want to have in the indictment is one count that’s pretty much indefensible. I think even the president’s most ardent admirers would have to admit that he does not execute the laws faithfully, which is one of the most important duties that he has in the Constitution.
The President is Responsible

“The president is the only officer in our government who is required by the Constitution to take an oath to faithfully execute the laws and preserve the Constitution. We have a president who is very arbitrary about laws. He enforces some. He doesn’t enforce others. He’s selective. He rewrites them. He presumes to be able to decree federal benefits. A lot of people may like that on the hard left, because its basically implementing their ideological program. But I think most people, if they’re of good faith, have to admit that he’s not following the law.”McCarthy usefully makes the point, that in such matters as Benghazi, the Justice Department’s actions and even the IRS scrutiny of conservatives, what Obama knew and if he had an active role doesn’t matter

“In the system the framers gave us, it was very important to them that the president be accountable. If you look at the Constitution carefully, you’d find that all the executive power in the government is invested in one person. It is not endowed in this vast array of executive agencies. It is singularly the president who is responsible.

“It’s not what Hillary Clinton does or Susan Rice does or Eric Holder or Eric Shinseki or any of the people who have become infamous over the past five-and-a-half years. All those facts are attributable to the president.”

Obama Throws Hagel Under the Bus; Hagel Returns the Favor

On Monday, members of Congress were told by White House officials in classified briefings, that Secretary of Defense Hagel, who has the final authority over prisoner transfers, was the one who made the final decision on the exchange of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for the five Taliban prisoners.

But yesterday morning, Hagel had a different story in his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. Hagel said that it was “the President of the United States, who made the final decision with the full support of his national security team.”
Only The President is Responsible

Later, he again referred to “the president’s decision to move forward with the transfer of these detainees,” while acknowledging, “he (Hagel) has the authority and responsibility to determine if any detainees can be transferred to another county.”When Hagel had finished his testimony, committee chairman Howard McKeon (R-Calif) stated, without contradiction from Hagel:

“In your statement, you indicated that the President had made the final decision on this operation. I appreciate you clarifying that. We had a briefing just a couple of days ago, and the last question asked by a member of Congress of the briefers was, who made the final decision? And one of the briefers stated that you had made the final decision. I think all of us understand how this place works. And a decision of this nature is always made by the commander-in-chief. And I think that you clarified that, and I appreciate that.”

Rep. Smith: If It Was Wrong When Bush Did It, It Was Wrong When Obama Did It

The senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee charged today that Obama violated the law in not notifying Congress of the prisoner exchange of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban prisoners being held at Guantanamo.

“The law is the law,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash) told Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel in this morning’s hearing, and “there was no reason that that 30-day notice couldn’t have been given to the leadership of Congress” about the prisoner exchange.

Following are Rep. Smith’s comments:

“I think it is wrong that months before — well, it’s wrong that when you knew that you were thinking about doing this deal, you didn’t take the top leadership in Congress and talk about it.
‘The Law is the Law’

“Now, I know the concern. The concern was that it would have been leaked. But as has been mentioned, Congress has been trusted with many, many other things, including the location of Osama bin Laden, and not leaked it. I think that type of consultation would have helped the process, not hurt it.”And the second piece that I’m concerned about is the 30-day requirement. Now, I know the president put out a signing statement when he signed the law that had that 30-day requirement in it, saying that he was concerned about the constitutionality about it. But the law is the law. The way you challenge constitutionality is you go to court and you figure out whether or not the courts say it’s constitutional or not. And until the courts rule on that, it is the law.

“When President Bush was in the White House, he had, gosh, hundreds of signing statements. And there was, I believe, a correct amount of outrage amongst many that those signing statements were put out there as a way to simply avoid the law. If it wasn’t right for President Bush to do it, it’s not right for President Obama to do it. So I would be very curious to understand the argument for why that 30-day requirement wasn’t in place. And again, I’ll come back to the fact that there was no reason that that 30-day notice couldn’t have been given to the leadership of Congress. We can in fact keep a secret, or I would say, we’re no worse at it than the administration, if you go back through history in terms of how things get out. So I think better consultation with Congress is something we will definitely need going forward.”

Southern Baptist Convention To Vote on Resolution To Impeach Obama

According to the Washington Times, the Southern Baptist Convention is set to debate and vote on a motion to join an effort to impeach President Obama. Former convention 2nd Vice President Wiley Drake entered the motion Tuesday at the Southern Baptists’ annual conference, which is being held in Baltimore.

Rev. Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., asked the convention to consider being a part of Operation American Spring seeking the impeachment of the President of the United States.

His motion was seconded by a scattering of the more than 4,400 conference registrants during an introduction of new motions by conference members. Drake’s motion will be debated and voted on later in the two-day convention.

This entry was posted in Impeach Obama and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.