Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

[ED.: to answer questions, doubts, and speculations about the Electoral Vote Confirmation by the U.S. Congress on Jan. 8, 2009, I added text from 3 USC Ch. 1 § 15 and the C-Span video from 1/8/09 to my original post of Jan. 12, 2009.]

"He [Senate Pres. Cheney] violated the law."

Originally Posted by Devvy Kidd

Realistically, the fix was in before the session even opened... [President of the Senate] Cheney does not ask if there is an objection. As I read the code, he violated the law. The only ones who care are you, me and Americans like Dr. Edwin Vieira, who said this: "Another anomalous illegality. They do not even bother to dissemble any more."

www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd427.htm

Originally Posted by 3 USC Ch. 1 § 15

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw...

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

Senate President Cheney violated the law.
Don't believe it? Watch the video yourself.



c-spanarchives.org/videoLibrary/ajax/ajax-widget-public.php?type=event_programs&eventid=172885

As the Vice President, Mr. Cheney should have known better . . . oh, uh, he did?



Before Jan. 8, 2009, the FBI knew most, if not all, of Mr. Obama's "legal discrepancies and Constitutional deficiencies" mentioned in the above video. But apparently, neither the FBI, then-Pres. Bush, nor then-Vice-Pres. Cheney found it politically expedient to act upon this information which we all knew.

July 14, 2014

Impeachment: The Red Line and the Last Straw

By Cindy Simpson

Where is the red line of impeachment?

In theory, a red line might be located somewhere on a list of impeachable offenses – perhaps at the point where a certain number of transgressions is exceeded, or next to a specific instance because of its significance or impact.
In reality, though, that red line exists along a spectrum of “political will.” As Andrew McCarthy explained: “You can have a thousand provable impeachable offenses, but before Congress may remove the president from power, there must be strong popular support – a public will that cuts across partisan and ideological lines.”
Wherever that red line of impeachment is drawn, certainly Obama – with his pen, phone, and pencil – must be drawing nearer to it by the day.
In May, Sen. Ted Cruz issued his fourth edition of “The Legal Limit Report,” which lists 76 instances of Obama’s lawlessness. Last month saw the release of Ben Shapiro’s important new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration, which argues for prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. McCarthy’s powerful book was also released in June: Faithless Execution: Building the Case for Obama’s Impeachment.
Since Cruz’s report and Shapiro’s and McCarthy’s books were written, the list of offenses has grown to include the Bergdahl trade, VA misconduct, additional ObamaCare debacles, and the border meltdown. Old scandals, instead of going away as “old news,” have deepened with new revelations – such as in the IRS targeting and Benghazi investigations.
And if “political will” could be measured, in part, by trends in presidential approval ratings, a majority has expressed its disapproval of Obama’s performance for over a year now.
Last week, Sarah Palin argued that it is “time to impeach.” “The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored,” she asserted. “If after all this he’s not impeachable, then no one is.”
Palin’s announcement was “bad news for the GOP” – according to The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake, and apparently taken as good news by Democrats. As reported by The Hill, the “Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee cited Palin’s comments in a fundraising email,” calling them “ugly attacks on President Obama’s legitimacy.”
But is talk of impeachment really bad news for Republicans?
In a recent discussion with Bill O’Reilly, Charles Krauthammer remarked that he applies his own “reverse tint” to the mainstream media’s “liberal filter.”
Should, then, a “reverse tint” be applied to reporting of the impeachment topic? Apparently not, asserted the WSJ with its subtitle to “The Impeachment Delusion” column: “You know it’s a bad idea when Sarah Palin and MSNBC agree.”
But it’s worth taking a “reverse” look at the media chatter.
How would Democrats fare if forced to defend Obama on the highly visible stage of impeachment? Would the process – rather than letting them “off the hook” (as the WSJ argued), and as opposed to a trial conducted by attorneys in a courtroom (as Boehner is proposing) – put them in the hot seat alongside the same guy, even as he campaigns for them, that they really, really “don’t want to be seen with”?
Democrats, forced to defend Obama’s numerous impeachable offenses, would be placed in the uncomfortable position of defending their own actions (or inaction) and their party’s policies and methods – which would, by extension, also be on trial. (ObamaCare is a perfect example on all counts.)
And while the Democrat-media complex insists that the GOP shouldn’t want impeachment – in reality, neither should the complex, since the process would call attention to its own integrity and validity. Obama is the “media’s president.” They created him, protected him – and they own him. As the song goes, “it’s too late to turn back now.”
The “tipping point,” argued Palin, has been reached with the “last straw” of the border meltdown. We’re beginning to see a flash of worry and recognition on some of the media’s faces, even as they are distracted from the real disaster with fretting over Obama’s “optics.”
On the anniversary of the Tea Act in May, I wondered whether a last straw might soon land on America’s back – one that would “spur citizens to become more actively engaged in our political community, or perhaps even further, to the point of outright defiance.”
The border mess and the “cumulative effect” of other lawless actions may represent the last straw that provokes Americans to rise up and take action – which might include a demand for serious consideration of impeachment.
Politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle and the media complex will still want to make it all about winning elections. But citizens, like these ones, couldn't care less about politics and parties as they fight to provide for and protect their families – especially when they find themselves in the battlefield, with their own elected officials fighting them.
It is said that tactics win battles, but strategies win wars.
The Democratic Party and its media complex are masters of tactics. They’ll continue to paint conservatives as extremists and racists. Obama will ridicule and taunt his opponents and rile up his fans with speeches. The media will fight to save President Obama’s legacy, and thereby its own reputation. Dems will keep pushing short-term spending and policy solutions that aid their cronies, grow the bureaucracy, and increase the numbers of those dependent on social programs – and thus their base. Progressives never let a good crisis, including one that might have been manufactured, go to waste.
Conservatives must offer the alternative: a strategy to preserve our constitution and restore our economy, national sovereignty, and security. That strategy, should Obama continue to push the envelope, may include the tactic of impeachment, carefully constructed to put on trial not America’s First Black President, but rather lawless progressivism.
“The failure to pursue impeachment,” observed Andrew McCarthy, “is likely to be suicide for the country, which is much more important than the political fate of the Republican Party.”
Although our party needs to win elections in order to execute strategy, ultimately, none of this is just about politics. It’s about winning a war for America.
And so, six months and several scandals later, I’ve revised my conclusion on impeachment, red lines, and last straws:
Until conservatives can successfully convince the people that the office of the presidency is more special than the person who occupies it, and that our constitution is more important than party politics – every single American, not just Republicans in the upcoming elections, will lose. And what is lost, should Obama continue on this destructive path of fundamental transformation, may never be regained.
At some point, a red line in that transformation exists – from which there is no turning back. A future Congress controlled by a majority that proclaims its unwillingness, in advance, to even consider impeachment may find itself unable to deter a president who dares to cross it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...st_straws.html

Can Congress sue the President? by Michael Vass

The headline question facing the nation has far-reaching consequences and cannot be taken lightly. Executive Power is a serious matter. Politics alone is never reason enough for such a powerful issue.
Given is the fact that the political parties are always biased in regard to this. Under Republican presidents Democrats scream outrage, and vice versa. All presidents push the envelope of Executive Power during their tenure. Thus the real question is where is the line that a President dare not cross, and what should be done when it is crossed?
Speaker Boehner has chosen the changes to Obamacare that President Obama unilaterally put into place for his line in the sand. There is no question that the President took action without Congress, as well as that the changes were changes in law and not just execution of the law. So the question of standing - the first hurdle that a lawsuit must clear to move forward - is valid.
But Obamacare is not the only case that can be claimed as crossing the line. The unilateral action on immigration - DACA - violates Executive Power as defined in the Constitution in that it affects an entire class of people, not a case by case discretion which is solidly in the purview of the Executive Branch. Lesser arguments can be made for violation of the War Powers Act last summer with Syria and even earlier with the bombing of Libya. There are many other examples that can be used, with varying degrees of support and credibility, but the point is that the Presidential overreach is occurring regardless of the issue used for the lawsuit being proposed.
So Speaker Boehner has picked potentially the best case to make the argument, at a time when the President has repeatedly publicly stated he will act unilaterally on a host of issues in debate in Congress. Still Rep. Slaughter, during the House Rules Committee hearing on the lawsuit July 16, 2014, took the partisan position of defending the Party first and the Constitution a far second.

"Furthermore the Constitution gives the Congress the power to write the laws. The legal theory put forward by the Republicans to explain why this lawsuit should prevail relies on the notion that somehow President Obama has nullified the House's legislative power. This is simply not the case."

Just as a quick summary response to Rep. Slaughter we provide the following from Forbes (2/24/14)

"But Obama has changed all of that, instead using executive orders on offense, to trigger a set of policy changes he wants but fears Congress won’t enact... frustrated by the inability of Congress to pass immigration reform, Obama kicked off his own set of reforms by executive order, halting the legal deportation of thousands of immigrants in the U.S. illegally... Congress won’t pass gun control? No problem, as Obama signed 23 executive orders on gun control, a couple of recent ones setting up possible confiscation of guns using the Affordable Care Act... Obama has found yet another use for executive orders: changing and amending his own laws... Don’t like the mandate on small companies? Fine, we’ll just postpone it. How about the requirements on big companies? Fine, we can ease those too. In all, the president has issued 22 modifications or delays of his signature legislation." [emphasis added]

There is no lack of documentation, reports and commentary that support a simple conclusion, President Obama has executed law. In fact, at the 2014 State of the Union Address, President Obama made his intent crystal clear

"I’m eager to work with all of you,” a confident Mr. Obama told lawmakers of both parties in the 65-minute nationally televised speech in the House chamber. “But America does not stand still — and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.” [emphasis added]

Thus the question becomes, without partisan defense of their own party for political self-interest, has the Executive Branch grown in power such that it today exceeds the intended limits outlined in the Constitution?
We believe that the House Rules Committee testimony of Johnathan Turley, a George Washington Law School professor, outlines the issue and the resolution.
We agree with Speaker Boehner, Rep. Sessions, Elizabeth Foley, Johnathan Turley, Georgia State University law professor Neil Kinkopf (accusing President Bush of presidential overreach), U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker (who ruled against the Bush & Obama Administration's claim of state secrets privilege for warrantless surveillance program) on Presidential overreach. Easily since President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of Japanese Americans with Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, if not even before that time, the power of the Executive Branch has steadily grown and is now far out of balance with the Congress and courts in our opinion.
Can Congress sue the President? Yes. More importantly the Congress must act, not just because of the promise of even further unilateral legislation, but because the power of the Executive is a slippery slope to a form of Government that our Founding Fathers created the Constitution to fight against.
Our conclusion is that the greatest benefit to the nation, now and in the future, is a direct action to curtail the overreach of the Office of the President. Because as John Nichols (Washington correspondent for THE NATION) said in part in 2007,

"He has taken powers unto himself that were never intended to be in the executive. And, frankly, that when an executive uses them, in the way that this president has, you actually undermine the process of uniting the country and really focusing the country on the issues that need to be dealt with. Let's be clear. If we had a president who was seeking to inspire us to take seriously the issues that are in play and to bring all the government together, he'd be consulting with Congress. He'd be working with Congress. And, frankly, Congress, through the system of checks and balances, would be preventing him from doing insane things..."

Those words apply as much today as they did 7 years ago, if not more. IF Congress fails to act, imagine what will be said about Presidential overreach in another 7 years.

http://www.mvass.com/2014/07/17/can-congress-sue-the-president/

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

[ED.: to answer questions, doubts, and speculations about the Electoral Vote Confirmation by the U.S. Congress on Jan. 8, 2009, I added text from 3 USC Ch. 1 § 15 and the C-Span video from 1/8/09 to my original post of Jan. 12, 2009.]

"He [Senate Pres. Cheney] violated the law."


Senate President Cheney violated the law.
Don't believe it? Watch the video yourself.



c-spanarchives.org/videoLibrary/ajax/ajax-widget-public.php?type=event_programs&eventid=172885

As the Vice President, Mr. Cheney should have known better . . . oh, uh, he did?



Before Jan. 8, 2009, the FBI knew most, if not all, of Mr. Obama's "legal discrepancies and Constitutional deficiencies" mentioned in the above video. But apparently, neither the FBI, then-Pres. Bush, nor then-Vice-Pres. Cheney found it politically expedient to act upon this information which we all knew.

Before Jan. 8, 2009, the FBI knew most, if not all, of Mr. Obama's "legal discrepancies and Constitutional deficiencies" mentioned in the above video. But apparently, neither the FBI, then-Pres. Bush, nor then-Vice-Pres. Cheney found it politically expedient to act upon this information which we all knew.

And to add insult to injury why didn't the Clinton's and anyone else who was running in the Presidential election bring it out, this was treason?? They all are involved!!!!!

Sen. Ted Cruz is Constitutionally ineligible to the Office of President (or Vice President), and doubly so. He was born in Canada to a father who was a citizen of Cuba at that time. Yet today's Newsmax poll has Sen. Cruz far ahead of the nearest contenders, Gov. Mitt Romney and Dr. Ben Carson.

How very sad that the Constitution of the United States has fallen into such disuse.
___________________________

Ted Cruz Releases Definitive List of 76 ‘Lawless’ Obama Actions

2:04 PM 05/07/2014

Patrick Howley
Daily Caller Political Reporter

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz released a definitive list Wednesday of 76 “lawless” Obama administration actions and abuses of power.

Cruz’s “The Legal Limit Report No. 4,” obtained by The Daily Caller, delves into little-known and little-reported details of President Obama’s executive actions. Cruz was set to discuss his report at the Federalist Society in the Promenade Ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel in Washington at 2:15 PM Wednesday.

“Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat,” Cruz stated in the report’s introductory remarks.

“President Obama has openly defied [rule of law] by repeatedly suspending, delaying, and waiving portions of the laws that he is charged to enforce. When President Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act,” Cruz wrote. “In the more than two centuries of our nation’s history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking others to do the same.”

Cruz details 76 specific actions over eight chapters. We’ve listed eight of them, as chronicled by Cruz, below:
1. “Obama implemented portions of the DREAM Act by executive action”
2. “Ended some terror asylum restrictions”
3. “Recognized same sex marriage in Utah despite a Supreme Court stay on a court order allowing the institution”
4. “Illegally revealed the existence of sealed indictments in the Benghazi investigation”
5. “Illegally delayed Obamacare verification of eligibility for healthcare subsidies”
6. “Ordered Boeing to fire 1,000 employees in South Carolina and shut down a new factory because it was non-union”
7. “Terminated the pensions of 20,000 non-union Delphi employees in the GM bankruptcy.”
8. “Government agencies are engaging in ‘Operation Choke Point,’ where the government asks banks to ‘choke off’ access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as ‘ammunition sales.’”

See the full report:
www.scribd.com/document_downloads/222704929?extension=pdf

dailycaller.com/2014/05/07/ted-cruz-releases-definitive-list-of-76-lawless-obama-actions/

Obama Laughs Off Impeachment, Says He’s “Doing His Job”

http://tellmenow.com/2014/07/obama-l...doing-his-job/



Obama Laughs Off Impeachment, Says He’s “Doing His Job”
tellmenow.com


Obama is like a teenager who thinks he’s invincible. Though he’s committed an astounding number of impeachable offenses, he seems to think that the idea of him actually being removed from office is laughable.
During a speech he gave in Texas, Obama slammed Republicans for filing a lawsuit against him for “doing his job”. Does this man honestly think that taking a break from the campaign trail to sign a quick executive order here and there constitutes doing his job?! Apparently, he does.
Obama also brought up Sarah Palin’s recent call for impeachment. He leaned on his podium inside of Paramount Theatre in Austin, TX and said:

“You hear some of them, sue him, impeach him. Really? For what? You’re going to sue me for doing me job. Think about that, your going to use taxpayer money to sue me for doing my job while you don’t do your job.”

Obama clearly thinks he’s above the law and something needs to be done to stop him, even if it requires tax-payer dollars to do so.
What do you think of the President’s latest snide remark? Tell us in the comments section!
H/T: Mr. Conservative

http://tellmenow.com/2014/07/obama-l...doing-his-job/


He is laughing at you America!!! And not only that, but so are the rest of our politicians!!!!!

Especially this one!!!!!

Have We Got A Conspiracy for You -
9/11? JFK? Obama's Citizenship?

Monday, July 21, 2014

On a list of some of the world’s best-known conspiracy theories, Americans are most likely to believe the one about JFK‘s assassination. But President George W. Bush and President Obama don't escape suspicion.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 45% of American Adults reject as false the theory that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by more than one shooter. Thirty-two percent (32%) believe more than one shooter was involved in the 1963 assassination in Dallas, and another 23% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Last November, on the 50th anniversary of the assassination, 36% of adults said Kennedy was the victim of a lone gunman, but just as many (37%) said he was the victim of a larger conspiracy.

One-in-four adults (24%) are convinced that the U.S. government knew in advance about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and did nothing to stop them, and 19% more are not sure. Only 57% say that conspiracy theory is false.

Just as many (23%) say the theory that Obama is not an American citizen is true, with another 17% who aren't sure. Sixty percent (60%) reject that theory as false.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 16-17, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president's party share that doubt.

www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/have_we_got_a_conspiracy_for_you_9_11_jfk_obama_s_ citizenship

Obama’s New Strategy: Push Republicans to Impeach Him

Richard Anthony 37 mins ago





The latest in a string of lies told by democrats to their voter base is, "if Republicans win the mid-term elections, they'll impeach Barack Obama." Now, as great as that may sound to those die-hard's on the far right, House speaker John Boehner has unequivocally stated, that is not on the Republican agenda. The reasons for this are actually quite simple. If Republicans in Congress do plan a move like that, it will rally the opposition to protect the president at all costs. Any Republican currently serving in congress should know, that to carry the impeachment banner, is a virtual political death sentence. Members of Obama's own administration know this, so they are using this as a means to get their supporters fired-up to get them to donate more money and drive them to the polls in November. Independent voters are fed-up with Obama, but they don't want to see the guy impeached. And there is absolutely, not one single republican politician right now wants to be the guy that impeaches Americas first black president.. That would be political suicide and the end of his/her political career.

Democrats know that they literally have nothing in the way of any kind of successful track record in the last six years to run on. So they have to create false narratives to get their voter base of illegal aliens, communists, environmentalists, homosexuals, welfare parasites, feminists, "enlightened" liberal progressives (did I miss anybody?) and low information voters in general, angry enough to win the mid-term elections for them. Nothing fires-up a loyal voter base, like the possibility of the impeachment of the first black president in American history.

For the last four years, the lie of the "Republican war on women" has done rather well, but if one looks too closely at the truth, you will see that it is Democrats who really don't care all that much about women or women's rights. One of the latest narratives is concerning the minimum wage debate is, while raising the federal minimum wage sounds really good, the consequences of such a move would cost more jobs. Employers already saddled with a plethora of costly new taxes and regulations , coupled with the abortion that is the Affordable Care Act, if they are forced into paying more money in wages, they will simply lay-off more employee's to balance operating costs while desperately trying to retain some measure of their already slim profit margins. But corporations aren't really people (as the left is so fond of stating), they're just evil, bloated entities that prey upon the working class and the poor, that only exist to make some evil old white men richer than they already are.

The lie of "Man made global warming" being easily disproved early on in his first term, was then shifted to "Climate Change." And while this lie laid slightly dormant, it has re-surfaced with a vengeance. With his re-election Obama has been the standard bearer for this lie and has enacted a firestorm of new environmental regulations and taxes. The EPA has exponentially grown into a fierce, saber-toothed, voracious beast. Filled with power mad bureaucrats, who are now armed with automatic weapons, who will storm onto your property to either shut-down any alleged instances of polluters violating poor, helpless mother earth, or even confiscating a Land Rover from a private citizen. And with the EPA, the IRS and the BLM becoming the new "Storm Troopers" or attack dogs for Obama, people are starting to see the truth.

And that brings us to (my personal favorite) the "race card." Now, while I was one of many that did his homework on then candidate Barack Obama in 2008, after the election I thought,"OK, he won, so let's give this guy a chance and see what he can do." I was actually quite proud that America had come so far, as to elect a black man as President of the United States of America. But those hopes were quickly dashed when President Obama started blaming all our problems on G.W. Bush. Then that narrative expanded to "greedy corporations" are to blame for all our troubles. As the "Blame Game," went further and it was revealed that Obama really didn't know what he was doing, he made a last ditch effort to prevent from being seen as a total idiot, and played the "race card" at any and every opportunity to deflect from his incompetence and poor job performance, using the bodies of rich, white liberals as a bullet proof vest. This is a fate that any self-respecting white progressive liberal is happy to accept, as he will be seen as a martyr and protector of African-Americans by those in his country club.

Now the call has gone out to prevent the Republicans from impeaching president Obama. Why would they be saying that? Is it because it is a convenient lie that they know their voter base will eagerly swallow, or do Democrats know that Obama has finally pushed his over reach of presidential powers past his limit? Either way, it sure has raked-in the cash! So far, in just a very short amount of time, over $2,000,000.00 has been raised. where on God's green earth do these people get all that money to throw away on a politician? That money could feed, clothe and house 1000 deserving homeless veterans.

And really, isn't that what this all about anyway, money? Democrats spend more money being elected by far than their Republican opponents, getting entire cemeteries across America to vote Democrat doesn't come cheap, nor does inundating the air-waves with lies and slanderous material. That costs a fortune too. But, as long as their is a guilty, rich, white liberal, a rabid homosexual, angry feminist, crazy earth loving environmentalist, a welfare parasite or communist to write a check, there is nothing to worry about.

But as far as impeachment goes, nobody is stupid enough to step on that bear trap!

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/obamas-new-strategy-push-republicans-impeach/#c3YX4M40c5JtlZ3b.99


He needs to be walked out of the White House and tried for treason, his deriliction of duty and failure to follow the Oath of Office and the Constitution are enough. This person is a traitor to our Country. Once that is completed work right on down the chain of command. They are all traitors..

Say What?????

Sheila Jackson Lee Too Stupid To Remember Trying To Impeach Bush




At this point, it’s been made clear that impeachment talks regarding Obama have been fabricated by Democrats in a blatant attempt to sucker donors out of a few more bucks. Leave it to an idiot like Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) though, to try and say that an attempt on impeachment would be just plain old unfair and that Dems would never stoop to such a low.

It seems the moron forgot that she tried to impeach Bush just a few years back.
According to her recent statement:

I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job. A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war it had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.

After taking a journey back in time however, it wasn’t too hard to stumble across this little tidbit. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you H.Res. 1258 – a resolution filed to impeach George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.

As we continue reading, well, what do we have here?


Look at that, Ms. Lee’s name right there having signed the resolution – a notion in which she claimed would be impossible for Liberals given their utmost noble mentality. So what do you guys think – is Lee just too stupid to remember that she did that in which she claims would be an impossibility, or is she intentionally lying? Feel free to let us know in the comments below.

H/T: Mr. Conservative

Meanwhile, in the "A thousand pictures worth a word" category:

Sean Hannity of Fox News, Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, and [Stanley Cohen (?),] an attorney for Hamas, discuss Obama's [in]eligibility [on].Hannity's radio show segment on 3/24/11.





No matter. Coast Province General Hospital was careful to record Dr. James O. W. Ang'awa's signature, er, scrawl.







www.scribd.com/doc/85065212/AZ-Sheriff-Arpaio-Obama-Birth-Cert-Draft-Reg-Card-Are-Forged-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-12-Mar-2012-pg-15


www.scribd.com/doc/190294355/Washington-Times-Ad-Obama-s-Sel-Service-Draft-Reg-Form-Back-Dated-Forged-09Dec2013

“If you will not fight for the right,” Sir Winston Churchill said, “when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”