Canada Free Press
Would a straightforward, unbiased analysis of the presidential actions of Barack Obama through March 2010, lead to a demand for his immediate impeachment and removal from office? Yes, for a most transparent reason: Obama is purposely undermining the US Constitution. In doing so, his actions make unstable every institution and office below the presidency, since the Constitution is the foundation of every government power and official decision. In fomenting institutional unrest across the US, he threatens the safety of every American man, woman and child, and all our citizens abroad.
The malign deeds of Barack include issues with: Honesty: Obama’s campaign was based upon a mass tissue of lies, undermining his legitimacy by deriving election results based on sheer falsehoods; Loyalty: When Obama flies around the world and criticizes America, or bows down to kings and despots, who is he actually representing? Fiscal Integrity: Deficit spending appears Barack’s only theory of government economic growth, eventually necessitating US insolvency. Knowledge & Competence: Obama repeatedly appears disinterested or ill-informed about important issues; Constitutional Fealty: Obama reveals contempt for the US Constitution; World-view: Barack often seems to identify more with socialists, or other radicals, than typical Americans; America’s Future: What possible strong tomorrow can America hope for if Obama’s ideas become default public policy?
The preeminent American political document is the Constitution. Its chief drafter was James Madison, the most gifted political theoretician of his day. 1 He and other Founders would claim the Constitution could not be changed without debasing the natural law theory behind it. 2 It offers the classic model of virtuous self-rule government, proposing an enlightened concept of law and the public good. It propounds wholesome truths regarding human nature and revealed religion. Because the Constitution rests upon a natural law foundation 3, being an appeal to immutable principles, it must not be quickly re-molded for a mere superficial switch in public opinion. Yet, Obama’s inane tinkering with our written foundation reveals a shocking lack of acceptance or understanding of the concepts that underlie our system.
The architectonic thinker of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism, John Locke, was the source of many concepts used in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Ideas on natural law, the need for consent of the governed, the sanctity of contracts and property rights, and a perpetual privilege to rebel against tyranny were some of his many contributions. Locke had absorbed the Puritanism of his upbringing and helped secularize many biblical concepts, like turning the covenant notion into a secular constitution. 4 Yet, just like today, many non-Believers also strongly supported the Founder’s cause.
Referred to as the Father of the Revolution, Founder Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” proclaimed the greatest American Revolutionary tract, sold almost 150,000 copies and was even read aloud by Washington to inspire his troops. Ironically, Paine was nearly as famed for his atheism as patriotism, merely proving the Founder’s principles did not appeal just to Believers, but were relished by the greatest minds of the age. Paine wrote in Common Sense, “In America, law is king.” 5 He believed a country must have a written constitution hedged by the rules of law before anyone could claim they were a free people. He dedicated the 4th chapter of his Rights of Man, Book II to the topic, titling it “Of Constitutions.” He wrote here;
All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either. 6
Paine also stated that constitutions are “to liberty, what a grammar is to language.” Elsewhere he claimed, “A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.” He added, “A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.”
Paine eloquently summed up in Rights of Man, Book II, what a constitution really is:
Here we see a regular process- a government issuing out of a constitution, formed by the people in their original character; and that constitution serving, not only as an authority, but as a law of control to the government. It was the political bible of the state. Scarcely a family was without it. Every member of the government had a copy; and nothing was more common, when any debate arose on the principle of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority, than for the members to take the printed constitution out of their pocket, and read the chapter with which such matter in debate was connected.
What is Obama’s attitude towards our Constitution? Even before Obama went to law school he had a serious disagreement with America’s secular bible. In his undergraduate college thesis, according to Liberal columnist Joe Klein, Barack complained:
The Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy. 7
Obama is not a fan of the Constitution. But why not? As good a guess as any, based upon a background soaked in socialism and communist influence, and his many comments to this effect, is that the main flaw of the document is it does not focus upon Barack’s chief aim—“justice” via redistribution of wealth.
After he became a lawyer, Barack did admit in a 2001 radio interview that the courts could not supply the abortion, expanded health care, and wealth “redistributive” changes he fought for as a community organizer, which explains why he originally ran for office. Obama said,
Typically, the court can be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives taken, but in terms of funding of abortions and Medicare and Medicaid, the court it not initiating those funding streams. Essentially, what the court is saying is at some point this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not, and I think those are very important battles that need to be fought and I think they have a redistributive aspect to them. 8
“Impeachment” describes the trial and conviction of elected officials for acts deemed deleteriously injurious to the state, sometimes followed by removal. The Middle English word empechen originally comes from Old French, meaning “to accuse, bring charges against.” The first English example occurred when Peter de la Mare, first Speaker of the English House of Commons, initiated impeachment and removal proceedings against Lord William Latimer in 1376 for raiding the public treasury for personal enrichment.
The Founders adapted impeachment from the British model. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, claimed it is a “method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.” 9 In the American version, the House assembles articles of impeachment and then votes on whether the charges are credible. If the House passes these by simple majority, the Senate then acts as court of impeachment, voting on removal by 2/3rds super-majority.
Two separate Constitutional amendments were passed by the First Congress for impeachment. Article I states “the House of Representatives…shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,” and “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Article I addresses punishment and proceedings for impeaching the President of the United States. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states, “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.” 10
Treason, High Crimes & Misdemeanors
“Treason” is defined as “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign; a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state; or the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.” 11 The Constitution defines “Treason” in Article III, section 3 as: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” But many acts that are profoundly disloyal and dangerous to America would not fit into that simple definition—which is why the Framers allowed some latitude in defining the subject. William Blackstone, the legal writer widely read in the colonies, develops in his Commentaries on the Laws of England a definition of High Treason that includes these words,
TREASON, proditio, in its very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith… As this is the highest civil crime, which (considered as a member of the community) any man can possibly commit… 12
Generally speaking, the House frames the Articles of Impeachment, and then the Senate votes upon them. The House acts like a prosecutor, while the Senate sits as a judge. But is there enough latitude in the impeachment definitions and rules to allow Congress to act? Specifically, if the two bodies believed a president were making socialist or communist machinations, based simply on this, could they remove him or her from office? Absolutely.
This is not about a Birth Certificate! As we can’t allow our U. S. Constitution to be selectively enforced.
POTUS, eligibility was never restricted to whites, males or anything else but what is listed in our Constitution. Consider these below source links from our United States Constitution as set in sequential order, and look at the clearly expressed systematics of the framers purpose and intent: Green links, you can click on it to go off my site, to that source record our United States Constitution.
1787- 17th, September: To be eligible for President; The United States Constitution, Article. II. section I. clause 5. says: No person except a ‘NATURAL Born Citizen,’ or a Citizen of the United States, ‘at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,’(grandfather clause) shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Off site to source record.
Article. I. Section. 2. clause 2. Eligibility for the House of Representatives: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a ‘CITIZEN’ of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
Article. I. Section. 3. clause 3. Eligibility for the Senate: “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a ‘CITIZEN’ of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
Obama II is not a Constitutional, United States Natural Born Citizen. Because his father Obama Sr. was not and never was any type of United States Citizen but a British Subject an alien.
Obama II has said that his birth was governed by his father Obama Sr., citizenship status at his own birth. This then makes Obama II at the very best a dual citizen and maybe not even that as he as yet to prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” .
For sure Obama is not a Constitutional NBC as required by our Laws to be POTUS. Obama has said he gave up his British Citizenship. This is not about being a US Citizen but about being a Natural Born Citizen. You can only get that status at your birth and if you are not born that way, then you will never be that way. It would require something unnatural to even suggest that you are what you are not.
Note the above are called source records and shows a clear difference between a U. S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The above is the law not an opinion or what some fool media talking head thinks.
Our limited constitutional republic, which is our form of government, is a government by laws and not by polls or what a few or many current people think it should be. We are or should be a Nation of Laws!
These men who wrote our United States Constitution while born on United States Soil were dual citizens because their parents were also British. Because they knew this and didn’t see themselves as being A Natural Born Citizen because their parents were not US Citizens at the time of their birth. These men who fought for and created the US Constitution were just Native Born Citizens of The United States like Obama is at best. These men wrote into and used the‘grandfather clause’ (see above) so they could be elected to be POTUS. It’s the way our founding fathers intended it to be. They have thus written it into our United States Constitution. If someone tells you this is not what they ment to say look for your own self at the above source record and see what you think it says.
Are we a Nation of Laws or a Nation of Fools?
SCOTUS 88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875 “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be Natural Born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was ‘NEVER DOUBTED’ that all children born in a country of parents who were it’s ‘Citizens’ became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or Natural Born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Off site to source record. 9th P. down.
Most probably recognize that United States citizens are created either at birth or at the moment of naturalization. The former is a native (using that term in its modern sense and not in the sense that the Founders used it) and the latter is not. Most probably also recognize that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But what many fail to recognize is that the event of birth has two natural elements which always have and always will be present in every birth: (1) the place where one was born and (2) the two parents who procreated the child.
Hence, some also fail to understand that there are two types of born citizens, one being a born “Citizen of the United States” and the other being a “natural born Citizen.” Under current law, a born “Citizen of the United States” is one granted that status under the 14th Amendment or Congressional Act (e.g. Title 8 Section 1401), both of which consider either (1) being born on United States soil or (2) being born to at least one United States citizen parent sufficient conditions for being granted the status of a born “Citizen of the United States.”
Never in our history has the United States Supreme Court or the Congress ever required that one needs to satisfy both of these conditions in order to be a “citizen of the United States.” But as to a “Natural Born Citizen,” we have a different story.
There is a legal way to change our Laws but it can’t be done by Congress passing a law of any kind. Go over to Thomas and do a seach and see how many times Congress has tried to change our Constitution in the correct way but got no place in trying to do it the lawful way.
Now they are doing it because they want to and no one will stop them. George Washington says it better than I ever could. He called it Usurpation! Don’t let these fools tell you what it says. You read it and it means what you think it means, not what someone tells you it means. In this matter the SCOTUS has stated what it takes to be a Natural Born Citizen of The United States, without any doubts. Congress can’t do away with it other than in the way the Constitution allows. They are trying to trash it and are doing a good job of it to this date.
No doubt in my mind every Congress person, every judge, every person who took and oath or affirmed to uphold the U.S. Constitution and didn’t. All, will be shown to be a traitor to the United States and our U.S. Constitution. That includes George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, my own Republican Congress men, all our State governors, including the so called news media. Because Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, They all know it is unlawful, all of them have helped it to happen rather than trying to stop this unlawful act. Therefore nothing citizen obama does sitting as an unlawful POTUS is legal. I call Obama the prince of fools, if you voted for the prince of fools and your not, then fix it!
“Interviews with Tea Partiers across the country paint a picture of a genuine, amorphous, conservative grassroots movement united by three core principles: constitutionally limited government, free market ideology ( not A corporate ideology ) and low taxes at least at the federal level. The American Constitution is a rallying cry and many now dub themselves “constitutional conservatives.”
People in the Tea Party are angry not just at what they describe as the socialist policies of Obama. They also feel Republican politicians have betrayed the party’s ideals of The US Constitution. For many in the movement, purging the party of moderate Republicans is a major goal.”
In Article. I. Section. 8. of The US Constitution, it lists all it allows our Congress to do. There are only 18 things and by law and their oath that is all that they can do. Why not take a look and read it.
“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Did you know some people think George Washington was not the first President of the United States?
John Hanson was President of the Continental Congress and had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid.
Hanson, as President of the Continental Congress, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite a feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus. Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since used on all official documents. Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.
The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President of the Continental Congress to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President of the Continental Congress to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation – and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was said to be strongly opposed to the U. S. Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.
Six other President of the Continental Congress, were elected after him – Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) – all prior to Washington taking office.
Why don’t we ever hear about the first seven President of the Continental Congress of the United States?
It’s quite simple – The Articles of Confederation didn’t work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written – something we know as our Constitution.
There simply are no words to describe the damage inflicted yesterday by Democrats upon America, her citizens, and the millions around the globe who look to America for hope – as the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Make no mistake about it – what happened yesterday was not brave, it was cowardly. It was not the best of America, it was the worst. And – at least with respect to the vote itself – it was not Republicans, it was Democrats. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and every other Democrat who sold his soul for 30 shekels of silver ignored the clear will of the American people. It was brazen. It was arrogant. And, it was a thumb in the eye of democracy, liberty, and most of all, the American people.
But rest easy. For now you know your enemies. And they stand before you.
For too many years, America has been attacked quietly – the serpent waiting patiently for his prey, striking only periodically. Starting primarily with the New Deal, incremental socialism as President Reagan famously observed, has been slowly eating away at the great American fabric of individual self-reliance, personal responsibility and limited government… Government program by government program, inch-by-inch, career politician-by-career politician… Democrat AND Republican. For decades, you have been losing your God-given and hard-fought birthright of freedom as surely as the vote that slapped you in the face yesterday.
But now… now, you know. Your enemy is clear. And the enemy has made clear their intentions – and that is the complete re-making of America.
Your enemy now is any Democrat – for it is a Party blinded by false notions of compassion, willing to trade liberty for self promotion and so devoid of a soul that innocent life is but a trivial instrument to barter. It is a Party lacking character and it is a Party that simply does not believe in the America of our founding.
But your enemy also is any Republican who is complicit in expanding government at the expense of liberty… Any Republican who would join hands with evil and continue to walk the road of denial, telling you he is fighting for America while he negotiates away her very foundation… And, specifically, any Republican who will not state clearly and succinctly that he will fight each and every day to repeal, de-fund, and otherwise eviscerate the healthcare bill.
And your enemy is the bill itself. For, if we do not repeal this bill, we will have nothing left. We will have forsaken all those who have bled to hand down to us this, the greatest nation the world has ever known – and we will have made a mockery of God’s blessing on this nation.
The time has come to say, “no more.” Not my country. Not on my watch. I will not stand by and let my nation be sold into the chains of tyranny in the false name of compassion. The opening words of the Declaration of Independence were nothing short of magnificent – charting a new course for humanity and laying the foundation for a new world. But, the actual force of the document were not the first words – rather they were the last:
Seven months after a terminal prostate cancer diagnosis with only three months to live, the only person convicted in the Pan America Flight 103 bombing has greatly improved in health, The London Daily Mail reported.
Scotland’s authorities released Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi from their custody on ‘compassionate grounds’ back in August 2009, allowing him to return to his home in Libya to spend his remaining time with his family.
The Mail’s report said that Col. Saif Gaddafi, son of Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, is now boasting of the suspect’s recovery.
One of the mysteries at the forefront of Megrahi’s currently improving state is the medical science originally justifying his release.
If fuzzy medical conclusions back Megrahi’s dismal diagnosis, then his ‘compassionate grounds’ release stands on a shaky foundation.
Considering the suspect’s medical history, it appears that Megrahi’s diagnosis was not a very cut and dry one to begin with.
For instance, one of the doctors involved in the suspect’s condition “had no expertise in terminal prostate cancer,” the Times of London reported.
According to Megrahi’s actual medical report from Aug. 3 2009, the consultants assessing his health consisted of two oncologists and two urologists.
It also included input from a ‘palliative care team’ and consultants who “reviewed, commented, and contributed to clinical management of the patient.”
The medical report noted Megrahi’s suffering from ‘metastatic prostate cancer,’ with consultants at first citing his “relative lack of symptoms when considering the severity and stage of his underlying disease.”
Nevertheless, the medical report went through with the cancer diagnosis, citing a progressive increase in pain with Megrahi’s lower back, a disturbed sleep pattern, and an increase in consuming “appropriate medicines.”
It acknowledged the complexity in assessing the outcome of Megrahi’s cancer.
‘It is very difficult to be precise on matters of prognosis for any disease and Mr. Megrahi’s condition is no different,’ it said.
An autumn 2008 prognosis of Megrahi’s survival time said that it could be ‘in the order of months to many months rather than years.’
The report’s more specific estimate gave Megrahi 18-24 months to live.
In light of the report’s ultimate conclusion of Megrahi’s significantly declined health, doctors recommended Megrahi’s release to be with his family for his remaining days.
Current news reports of Megrahi’s improving health would render any previous diagnosis as conflicting, especially considering the medical report’s original conclusion that “a cure is not an option” for Megrahi.
According to data from the American Cancer Society (ACS), prostate cancer accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related deaths in men.
There can be a five year survival time after the being treated for the initially diagnosed cancer. It is also possible for many patients to live beyond the five year time frame as well, according to the ACS website.
Odds of extending the one’s time frame improve as treatments improve. In all likelihood, it is possible Megrahi might live five years or more as long as he continues receiving treatment for prostate cancer.
Megrahi’s improving health is also likely to intensify political backlash of those who were responsible for his release in the first place.
According to various news reports, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and Prime Minister Gordon Brown have both played a role in working out a deal for Megrahi’s release.
As recently as March 1, the family of the Lockerbie bomber expressed hope in the idea that Megrahi could beat cancer.
Voter anger is building on issues beyond ObamaCare. The large group of people already angry over runaway spending and ObamaCare are now being joined by those angry at the EPA for moving forward with controls on greenhouse gases without congressional action — and without considering the economic impact on the economy. Like the Tea Party movement, this group cuts across geographical and political lines.
Well, they finally did it. Despite more than a year of steadily rising public opposition, manifested in opinion polls and in protest rallies across the country, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally rammed through Obamacare late Sunday when House Democrats gave the bill their imprimatur.
The House vote isn’t the end of the national debate on this issue, however, as the Senate still must accept the House changes in the Senate Obamacare bill. Senate Republicans argue that the House reconciliation bill that makes significant changes in the Senate bill violates the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, maintaining that it should be ruled out of order by the Senate parliamentarian for consideration in the upper chamber. That in turn would mean the only bill the president could legally sign would be the original Senate bill, with its massive funding of abortion and the infamous deals used to buy senators’ votes, including the Cornhusker Kickback. At that point, a constitutional crisis of historic magnitude seems inevitable.
Here’s why: Never before in American history has a measure of such importance been imposed on the country by the majority party over the unanimous opposition of the minority. Democrats have continually sought to create a halo effect for Obamacare by associating it with Social Security and Medicare. But the reality is that both of those landmark programs were approved with strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and House. The Senate vote on Social Security in 1935 was 77-6, with 64 Democrats being joined by 14 Republicans. In the House, the 373 votes for Social Security included 77 Republicans. When Medicare passed in 1965, the 68-21 Senate vote included 13 Republicans, while 65 Republicans were among the 313 affirmative House votes. Such bipartisan consensus was what the Founders sought with the Constitution. But Democrats made a mockery of bipartisanship by shoving Obamacare down the throats of Republican lawmakers and snubbing the popular majority that opposed it. The Democrats have undercut the credibility of the law they created.
A fast-track challenge to Obamacare’s constitutionality will likely reach the Supreme Court in coming months. The justices will have multiple issues to consider, including the unprecedented federal mandate that all individuals buy approved health insurance, the undeniable inequity of the many corrupt bargains used to buy votes for the measure, and the banana republic parliamentary tactics used by the Democratic congressional leadership. Whatever the high court’s decision, it won’t be nearly as unpleasant as the verdict many Democrats will hear from their constituents in November.