• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Yes, yes, I know. An impeachment investigation will never be started while Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House. The good news is that this obstacle to impeachment will likely be removed by January.

It goes without saying that the impeachment process should never be a political weapon used to pursue partisan political advantage. But neither should an impeachment investigation be obstructed for political reasons.

Impeachment is a constitutional remedy to be used for serious offenses identified in the Constitution. So, we must ask this question: Has Barack Obama crossed the line that separates political differences from the serious offenses that warrant impeachment?

The Constitution’s provisions for impeachment and removal are not aimed solely at the office of president. Article II, Section 4, stipulates that “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.”

Let the world know your solution to unconstitutional tyranny in America with the magnetic bumper sticker: “IMPEACH OBAMA!”

I believe there is a growing body of evidence of impeachable offenses sufficient to warrant a formal impeachment resolution in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate.

It is instructive that the founders listed only two specific crimes justifying impeachment – bribery and treason. The accusations of bribery against this president are now numerous and growing, and by themselves deserve an independent investigation under supervision of a bipartisan committee of the House of Representatives. In Pennsylvania and Colorado, candidates for the U.S. Senate were offered federal appointments in exchange for dropping out of their respective races. On their face, those actions are attempted bribery and warrant a thorough investigation.

There are also presidential actions that may stray into the category of high crimes and misdemeanors. Only this past week we have witnessed a United States senator tell his constituents that the president, in an Oval Office conversation, refused a direct request to enforce the Constitution’s guarantee of federal protection against foreign invasion. Obama wants a legislative “deal” in exchange for acting to secure the southwest border.

Let’s ponder the meaning of that news item and ask if this falls into the category of normal political “horse trading.” The president of the United States, in brazen defiance of his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, refuses to faithfully execute the laws of the United States unless he gets amnesty legislation to benefit another 15 million to 20 million illegal aliens. The principal beneficiary of that amnesty would be a foreign country, Mexico, not the United States.

Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution guarantees each state protection against foreign invasion. The governor of Arizona and three other governors have formally requested 6,000 National Guard troops to help protect against the foreign invasion now under way, an invasion supported, encouraged and assisted by the government of Mexico. President Obama says – no, I will not fulfill that constitutional duty unless I get something in return.

Seven United States senators have written President Obama to ask him not to use his executive powers for parole and delayed departure to grant de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. If he does use this power, which was clearly intended by Congress as an administrative remedy to be used in individual cases, he will be violating the spirit of the separation of powers and usurping legislative authority over immigration law.

In foreign affairs, this president has shown a cavalier disregard for the security interests of the United States. In Afghanistan, he has insisted on a fixed timetable for withdrawal of U.S. military forces – against the strenuous objections of his military advisers. He thereby gave the enemy a timetable for their victory and the return of terrorist training bases in that country.

Obama has refused to allow anyone in his government to use the term “radical Islam” to describe the enemy who has declared war on this country. To what purpose? If you cannot identify your enemy, that can only serve to hinder the prosecution of that war and undermine the sovereignty and security of the United States.

But perhaps Obama’s most serious offense against the Constitution’s limitations and obligations is his war against the Constitution itself. He does not adhere to the oath he took to defend the Constitution because he does not respect the Constitution.

It may be that these actions do not yet support or prove a case for impeachment. But considering Obama’s drive for expansion of his executive powers and his disregard for clear constitutional duties, it clearly is time for Congress to open an investigation.

Citizens and patriots who love the Constitution and the liberties it protects have already started their own impeachment files to chronicle Obama’s high crimes and misdemeanors, beginning with the overt crime of bribery. Whether or not the crime of treason will be added to that file remains to be seen. But the question is being asked, and the answer may not be pretty.


If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll.


  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.