Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
A Florida-based organization of black Republicans is calling for Barack Obama’s impeachment, releasing “Articles” that charge him with “egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.”
According to the Florida WatchdogWire, there are 10 articles including obstruction of the investigation into the Benghazi, Libya, murder of four Americans; the scandal of the administration’s running guns to drug ring lords in Mexico and the Internal Revenue Service’s campaign to obstruct the operations of conservative and Christian organizations.
The National Black Republican Association is an organization that is dedicated to returning “black Americans to their Republican Party roots by enlightening them about how Republicans fought for their freedom and civil rights, and are now fighting for their educational and economic advancement.”
The organization said the articles were delivered to Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.
“On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared: ‘When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government…”
The Constitution also requires that a president or vice president “Shall be removed from office” for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The challenge to Obama lists Benghazi, his disclosure of secret grand jury material about Benghazi, the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, his authorization of the provision of confidential income tax returns to outside interests, the IRS audits of conservatives, the electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency of innocent Americans, the Department of Justice’s wiretaps on journalists, the thwarting of the will of the people over the Defense of Marriage Act, his unconstitutional appointments of three members of the National Labor Relations Board and his intimidation of whistleblowers.
“Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office,” the articles finish.
Just a few days earlier, a member of Congress said there likely would be votes enough in the House to impeach.
But Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, said it would be ineffectual because the Democrats in control in the Senate never would take any action.
Buzzfeed reported Farenthold responded to a question from a constituent at an open house.
The Constitution also requires a president to be a natural-born citizen, which the Founders apparently defined as the offspring of two citizens of the nation. Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen.
The issue got so much attention during Obama’s first term that he presented a document he claimed was his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.
Since then, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse investigative team have concluded the document is a fraud.
WND has reported that members of Congress are expressing interest in the dispute.
Farenthold said at the open house Saturday that it’s probably too late to address the matter.
“I think unfortunately the horse is already out of the barn on this, on the whole birth certificate issue,” said the congressman. “The original Congress, when his eligibility came up, should have looked into it, and they didn’t. I’m not sure how we fix it.”
Farenthold told the audience in Luling, Texas: “You tie into a question I get a lot: ‘If everyone’s so unhappy with what the president’s done, why don’t you impeach him?’ I’ll give you a real frank answer about that: If we were to impeach the president tomorrow, you could probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it. But it would go to the Senate and he wouldn’t be convicted.”
He cited the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, who was not convicted by the Senate.
That episode, he said, “redefined sex” for a lot of young people.
“What message do we sent to America if we impeach Obama and he gets away with what he’s impeached for and he is found innocent? What then do we say is OK?” Farenthold asked.
The latest American group to seek formal congressional action against Obama says on its website that its goal is simple: “The removal of the corrupt and criminal president of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama.”
“His actions go unimpeded, our pleas through petitions unanswered. Our calls and letters to Congress are left ignored and unopened,” the group’s online post explains. “Our only peaceful recourse is to take to the streets and overpasses of America and DEMAND that our nation be returned to We the People, and that Barack Hussein Obama be impeached, removed from office, and held accountable for his actions while serving as president.”
The overpass protest group says America “is in its greatest time of peril in since the Founding Fathers bravely fought in the Revolutionary War.”
“Lady Liberty is calling YOU to stand up, to speak out, to take to the streets and DEMAND that the corrupt tyrant be removed from the White House, and all of those who colluded with him in his crimes against the United States be held accountable to the full extent of the law, with the maximum sentences handed down upon them.”
WND has reported previously on many calls for Obama’s impeachment, which would put him in the company of Nixon and Bill Clinton.
The petition states: “Therefore, we the undersigned urge Congress to immediately undertake a full and impartial investigation into the many blatantly unconstitutional actions of Barack Obama. For members of Congress, each of whom has also sworn a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, to allow a president to routinely flout the Supreme Law of the land without being held accountable is equally repugnant to a free country and a free press.”
Tens of thousands already are on board with the effort, which is just the latest in a long string of calls for impeachment or an investigation.
Impeachment has been brought up by several WND columnists, too.
Nat Hentoff wrote that Obama, “since taking office, has continually limited the First Amendment, the most singular and powerful right that distinctly identifies Americans from residents in all other countries on Earth.”
“I want Obama to go through the process because he has it coming. In totalitarian states, after all, the people have no other recourse except to take to the streets and spill blood. But we have available the process of impeachment, and Obama should be forced to defend his contemptible lies and actions,” he wrote. “If for no other reason than his unbearable arrogance, the schmuck should have to pay a penalty. For instance, when a White House reporter asked him to justify spying on the Associated Press, Obama said, ‘I’ve still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and I still have a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.’ No, sir, the United States has 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.”
A panel of top constitutional experts convened by WND blasted Obama’s actions in office. Bruce Fein, the legal scholar who is best known for having drafted articles of impeachment against former President Clinton for perjury after he lied under oath, said Obama’s orders to drone-kill a terror suspect were “tantamount to murder.”
“You can’t have democracy and the rule of law if you never get to know what the facts are and you just have to accept what the government says they are. If you don’t have a trial, that’s the definition of tyranny.”
Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project, said of Obama’s appointment of “czars”: “That is a big deal. A lot of people say, ‘Well, that’s been going on a long time.’ In our form of government, citizens vote for representatives and representatives pass laws. You have people heading departments, and they’re confirmed. There’s an understanding that we will call you up whenever we need to. … Congress passed legislation saying there’d be no funds for three czars, and they were named in the bill. Obama signed it into the law, but in the signing statement, he said that’s unconstitutional because he has the ‘prerogative’ to get the advice he needs to implement statutes. Well, c’mon Obama. You don’t have a prerogative to bring into the White House anybody you want at any salary. It’s all done by law. It goes back to 1978 where Congress passed legislation saying you have this number of people and these are their salaries and Congress can increase or decrease that at any time.”
And Herbert Titus, counsel to the law firm William J. Olson who previously taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools, said Obama’s military actions in Libya are a strong argument for impeachment.
“That’s the one that stands out. It’s unprecedented. It doesn’t even fit within any of the precedents that have been set since Korea.”
“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll.
Half or nearly half of those surveyed said they believed Obama should be impeached for the multitude of scandals now consuming Washington.
On the issue of the Benghazi scandal, in which four Americans were killed after terror threats were ignored, 50.1 percent of Americans said Obama should be impeached. That included 27.6 percent of the responding Democrats.
On the IRS harassment of conservative and Christian organizations? Forty-nine percent said they agree that impeachment is appropriate, including 24.4 percent of the Democrats.
And on the fishing trip the Obama administration took into AP reporters’ telephone records in search of a security breach that may have been done by his own administration, 48.6 percent said impeachment is appropriate. That included 26.1 percent of the Democrats.
“The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous<” she said. “No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.
Noonan said Obama, “as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him.”
“He’s shocked, it’s unacceptable, he’ll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department,” she continued. “A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.”
That was the assessment of no less than Woodward, whose reporting on Watergate eventually snared the sitting president.
Woodward said recently: “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”
A Republican congressman also recently brought up the subject.
“I would say yes. I’m not willing to take it [impeachment] off to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told CNN.
“We want truth, we want to bring the people who perpetrated the terrorism in Benghazi to be brought to justice, and we want to have the president do what he has said he would always do. And that is be open and transparent. Thus far, the White House has not done that.”
“It’s certainly a possibility,” he told the paper. “That’s not the goal but given the continued lies perpetrated by this administration, I don’t know where it’s going to go. … I’m not taking it off the table. I’m not out there touting that but I think this gets to the highest levels of our government and integrity and honesty are paramount.”
Chaffetz has been championing the call to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the Benghazi compound that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said impeachment was possible over the “most egregious cover-up in American history.
“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe told radio host Rusty Humphries, according to The Hill.
“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.
“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.
Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his second term because of his complicity in a cover-up over Benghazi.