Tancredo – Why Obama Should be Impeached

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) pulls no punches in his latest Washington Times OpEd – “The case for impeachment: Obama has violated his oath of office over immigration.”

You don’t hear politicians speak this truthfully very often.

Mr. Obama’s paramount goal, as he so memorably put it during his campaign in 2008, is to “fundamentally transform America.” He has not proposed improving America – he is intent on changing its most essential character. The words he has chosen to describe his goals are neither the words nor the motivation of just any liberal Democratic politician. This is the utopian, or rather dystopian, reverie of a dedicated Marxist – a dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House.

Because of the power he wields over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and even health care, his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it – all of these make this president today’s single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.

Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.

Well said Mr Tancredo.

Read the whole article here.

3 thoughts on “Tancredo – Why Obama Should be Impeached

  1. Pingback: President Obama

  2. Pingback: Tancredo – Why Obama Should be Impeached  | Skoopio.com













    —————————-NO SHARIA LAW


    Dear “Chosen” Activists:

    Today, 7/14/10, is Bastille Day in France, for Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and their Revolution.

    Tragically, Obama has violated his oath of office to protect and defend America from foreign and domestic enemies, with his total committment to everything Islam and to those committed to “Death to Israel” and “Death to America”, resulting in 11 domestic terrorist events just in the U.S. in 2009.

    He has appointed every political incompetent and hack who backs this Jihadist president and his Jihadist agenda.

    America and Israel are in great danger as a result of this betrayal and treachery and where anyone who dares to expose this fraud is labeled a ‘racist’, etc.

    In spite of the pro-Obama/Muslim media, 60% of Americans are not buying Obama any longer.

    Below are two vital articles demanding your attention and explanation as phase one of this ‘impeachment’ which I am pursuing as an ‘independent’ candidate for Congress, Dist. 20, and against Rep. Debbi Wasserman Schultz (Schmutz), Obma’s #1 lap dog and mouth piece, who told the Jews we could trust Obama on Israel and it was all lies from both of them.

    What kind of Jew would divide Jerusalem, Jewish for 3000 yrs. and millions of Jews were murdered for? SCHULTZ of course.

    What kind of Jew would remain silent when Obama equated in Cairo, in 2009, that the “Holocaust” was equal to “Muslim Humiliation”? SCHULTZ of course.

    What kind of Jew would allow Obama to attack Israel for protecting the buriel place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their wives, as a ‘provocation” to the Muslims, when Abraham the first Jew and our forefather,bought his burial place which is 3000 yrs. older than Islam? SCHULTZ of course.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz is that kind of sell-out Jew on this and a host of other outrageous attacks upon Israel and our faith…. by this career politician, who wants to be Nancy Pelosi’s replacement and Schultz keeps plugging for Obama who should be held ‘criminally negligent’ for the Gulf Oil catastrophe, now in day 86, who could care less about this issue, when he was and is so busy trying to divide and conquer Israel, instead of how to save America, whether in jobs, security, environment and a host of other failures jeapordizing America’s survival and thrival.

    Today, this Jew, Kunst, led our 311th rally, since Oct. 2007 and 1205 news interviews, inside Century Village and also on Pine Rd. at entrance to Century Village,in Pembroke Pines, to Keep Jerusalem and Israel United and to Fight terrorism and the Islamic Nazis, Obama supports.

    Do you understand that there are 3 republicans running against Schmutz, who are very weak and can’t beat Schultz, but I can as an ‘activist Jew’, not a politician, registered Democrat, but running as an independent in the November election. Is the issue to save the GOP going nowhere in this district or to defeat Obama and Schmutz?

    Can you imagine the impact of defeating Obama and his #1, on Congress and cleaning out the ‘schmutz’? That is all the bad people in Congress that now only has 11% support from grassroots America. Besides committing myself to immediately begin ‘impeachment’ proceedings against Obama, I also plan to organize weekly rallies at the White House on all of his outrageous betrayals to the American people on every level, plus all of America’s allies he is endangering as well as America.

    This is a national campaign and referendum on Obama and also direction for Bibi Netayahu and each of you who cares for and loves America and Israel, if you just committed $25 or more, we can win this, because the only negative is that folks don’t know that I’m running and Schmutz is not well liked, even in this bastion of liberalism.

    So the decision is yours. Keep silent and allow the same menaces to grow and consume Israel and America and the West, or fight back through http://www.kunstforcongress.com and use me to send this message nationally and internationally.

    Empower yourselves and help me to help you, Israel, Jerusalem, America and all of our efforts to get this great nation back on track for our own survival.

    Please go to the web site and donate via paypal on http://www.kunstforcongress.com or by mail to: “Kunst For Congress”, P.O.Box 402263, Miami Beach, Fla. 33140.

    Yours in Shalom,
    Robert Kunst
    Pres., Shalom International
    Political Advertisement paid for by….Robert Kunst….Independent for Congress, Dist. 20.
    Monday, June 21, 2010
    Supreme Court Upholds Material Support Law #Title18 #Hamas #912 #tcot #dnc #gop
    Hat tip: Ron SouthBend ACT for America and Mark Hass EducateUSA

    by Stephen I. Landman
    IPT News June 21, 2010

    Department of Justice won a major victory Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the “material support” statute. In a 6-3 opinion announced by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that the Constitution does not preclude the government from criminalizing speech and other forms of advocacy in support of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), even if the intent is to support the group’s “peaceful or humanitarian” efforts.

    Under U.S. law, it is a crime for any person to provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. Known as the “material support” law, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B has become a cornerstone in U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. Since 2001, the U.S. has charged approximately 150 defendants with violations of the statute, and to date approximately 75 people have been convicted.

    The statute defines “material support or resources” as:

    “any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instrument or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials” (emphasis added).

    The Court began by rejecting the argument that the statute was violated the Fifth Amendment because it was unclear to an ordinary person what type of activity was actually prohibited. Explaining that “perfect clarity and precise guidance have never been required,” the majority found the statute was sufficiently clear in what conduct was proscribed:

    “Of course the scope of the material-support statute may not be clear in every application. But the dispositive point here is that the statutory terms are clear in their application to plaintiffs’ proposed conduct, which means that plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge must fail.”

    Next, the Court rejected the claims that the law violated free speech and free association guarantees in the First Amendment. Those challenging the statute sought to provide non-violent resources to support the humanitarian and peaceful efforts of terrorist organizations. The Court found that not only was there no distinction between the violent and non-violent wings of terrorist groups, but that terrorist groups benefit from any support given to them.

    The case on appeal involved groups and individuals who wanted to support the humanitarian and political activities of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)—groups that were designated as FTOs in 1997.

    Hoping to continue supporting the PKK and LTTE, the petitioners challenged the law, aiming to have it struck down as unconstitutional. As they explained in their opening brief to the court, “plaintiffs here seek only to safeguard their right to promote lawful, nonviolent activities through pure speech,” and the statute violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights by preventing them from doing so.

    Rejecting each of the challenges, the Court conceded that the PKK and the LTTE may engage in political and humanitarian activities. But overwhelming evidence also showed that both groups have committed numerous acts of terrorism, some of which have harmed Americans. In light of the dual-use qualities of terrorist organizations, the Court went on:

    “Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted section 2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism. One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further the terrorist activities of the PKK and LTTE: ‘Foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.'”

    Recognizing that any aid given to a terrorist group supports that group, the Court next turned to whether or not it would be permissible to give non-violent aid to promote the peaceful activities of a terrorist group.

    Prior to Monday’s ruling, critics of the statute had argued that people should be able to provide aid to promote the non-violent activities of terrorist groups. As one amicus explained in supporting the challenge to the law:

    “Unlike money or weapons, information is not fungible. Learning about non-violent alternatives does not enhance the ability to make bombs; nor does communication with a researchers or journalist who seeks to expand the store of public information about a group.”

    Such arguments were embraced by civil liberties groups who argued, among other things that:

    “Allowing charities to provide humanitarian aid to individuals trapped in conflict zones in the Middle East and Central Asia, for example, would go a long way towards countering negative perceptions of America….Requiring a showing of specific intent to support illegal act prevents squandering limited prosecutorial resources on pro-peace charities such as the Humanitarian Law Project.”

    That argument held some sway with a number of Justices. The three Justices dissenting, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, believed that in order to hold somebody liable for violating the statute, there must be a finding that the defendant intended one’s support to benefit the violent aims of a terrorist group.

    This point was roundly rejected by the majority. Discussing how humanitarian aid assists terrorist groups by legitimizing them during arguments in February, Justice Roberts argued:

    “A group that the government could reasonably determine should not be supported in any way…because it legitimizes it. It’s going to make their hospital run better. People are going to like their hospital. So the party, the group, will be legitimized.”

    Similarly, Justice Antonin Scalia commented:

    “The theory of the legislation is that when you aid any of their enterprises, you’re aiding the organization. Hamas, for example, gained support among—among the Palestinians by activities that are perfectly lawful, perhaps running hospitals, all sorts of things.”

    Solicitor General Elena Kagan, now the President’s nominee to join the Supreme Court, provided perhaps the best elucidation of this argument, explaining:

    “Hezbollah builds bombs. Hezbollah also builds homes. What Congress decided was when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs.”

    The court roundly rejected the claims that there’s a distinction between aid to a terrorist group’s “social” wing, as opposed to its military wing. The ruling echoed Kagan’s arguments:

    “Material support meant to ‘promote peaceable, lawful conduct’ can further terrorism by foreign groups in multiple ways. Material support is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups—legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds—all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.”

    Broader Implications for Legal War on Terror

    The Court was careful to explain that the ruling was limited to the immediate facts of the case. Justice Roberts pointed out early in the decision that “the Court does not decide whether any future applications of the material-support statute to speech or advocacy will survive First Amendment scrutiny,” but only that it was acceptable in the case of Humanitarian Law Project.

    Despite this warning, the opinion should end any future arguments that individuals can give non-violent support to promote the “peaceful or humanitarian efforts” to international terrorist groups. Among the cases which Monday’s decision could affect is Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Evidence in that case proved that millions of dollars from the Texas-based charity went to Palestinian entities controlled by the terrorist group Hamas. The defense argued that, regardless of who handled the money, it was sent to help feed and provide medical care to needy Palestinians.

    With this decision, the government can continue to crack down on the support structure for terrorist organizations that is being uncovered on a routine basis in the United States.

    For a more detailed discussion of the legal and policy arguments surrounding Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project see our comprehensive report on the litigation here.

    Related Topics: Prosecutions, Terror Financing | Stephen I. Landman
    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

    Posted by Stan188 at 10:39 PM

    Post a Comment
    Thank you for posting on MEP




    Email: [email protected] Please disseminate & re-post. If you publish, send us a copy. Many of our articles appear on Websites at http://www.JewishIndy.com, gamla.org.il/english & freeman.org Outgoing mail is virus-checked. To be removed from this list, please send your Email address

    by Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East Analyst & Commentator

    Personally, I saw no genuine friendliness in the contrived TV interviews between President Barack Hussein Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu. Their facial expressions, their body language and finally, their words of compatibility were empty of meaning.

    Trusting Obama is not exactly what an intended victim should do.

    Granted, we were not privy to the real conversations but, I suspect that Obama dictated terms and Netanyahu tried to agree without increasing the rage Obama feels toward the Jewish Nation/State.

    Obama needed that public sham of saying Israel will always be America’s ally and friend. The major “sound-bytes”: “America and Israel bonds are unbreakable” and “Israel will always be America’s ally and friend” were necessary for Obama’s upcoming mid-term election campaign to keep his hold on a Democratic-dominated Congress.

    Those vacuous statements simply meant that he would play the political game of encouraging Israel and the Christian Zionist voters to ignore his pro-Arab stance in time to win control of the Congress in November.

    A great deal of what really went on in private will show up in what Netanyahu actually does. Will Bibi keep his word that the freeze on housing construction will end, as scheduled, in September? Or will he cook up some political double-talk to justify extending the halt of construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem?

    I personally think he will cave and further confirm that he has a flexible rubber spine.

    Will Bibi pretend to himself that direct talks with Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) will not result in a Palestinian State with a confederation of Fatah and Hamas? Bibi will put into any agreement some useless unenforceable terms, such as the Palestinian entity will be disarmed and perhaps guarded by NATO or the UN as was done in Lebanon.

    (Note! That false and failed plan was accepted by Tzippi Livni, head of Kadima with assistance of Ehud Barak, head of Labor, long known as a Leftist plant for the U.S. State Department.)

    I personally think that Obama will plunge ahead in tying America to Islam until one of the Jihadist sleeper Muslims blows up an American city (G-d forbid). Then Obama will be impeached and the President’s men, aka advisors, Czars, Czarinas, Islamic fellow travelers in America’s Intel Agencies and Centcom (Central Command of the Middle East) will end up in Federal Prison just like Richard Nixon’s collaborators.

    Can anyone trust Obama on any matter? Generally not, although he lies with convincing elegance as to be expected of a sophist who can jump to any side of an issue and argue cunningly. However, when it come to the Jewish Nation/State of Israel Obama’s bias is consistent.

    Can Muslims trust Obama? Yes and no. If what Obama has done against the Jews and Israel in deference to Islam appeals to Muslims, they should be delighted with a “friend” in the White House – for now.

    On the other hand, most virulent jihadists would still view “Christian” Obama as an apostate who left Islam and, therefore, he is subject to Shari’a law and, you know what that means. (An apostate is considered a traitor to Islam and subject to a “fatwa” to be murdered.)

    However, some Muslims believe Obama is in alignment with Koranic Law which teaches that a Muslim can act as an agent for Islam and lie to the “infidel” (non-Muslim).

    Presently, many indicators are surfacing that speaks to Obama’s alliance with Islam. We just heard (July 9th) that Obama instructed Charles Bolden, the head of NASA to reach out to Muslim dominated countries and help them “feel good” about their contribution to science, math and engineering.

    Presumably, that would include bringing Muslims into NASA’s technology of building and launching space-capable rockets or, otherwise, learn technology to be used for missiles.

    Let us recall that on March 2, 2009 Obama – through his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, pledged $900 million dollars to Muslim Arab Palestinians, claiming none of it would go to Hamas.

    Also (while America is drowning in $13 trillion of debt) on June 10th Obama offered a new package of $400 million to Muslim Arab Palestinians in Gaza – which is controlled by Hamas.

    Look at the proposal that was put forth April 17, 2009 by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. It states that Israel would receive “normal relations” with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem – a full withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines. Obama pledges a State to the Palestinian leader.

    Also, we recently learned that Obama ordered Centcom (Central Command of the Middle East) to collaborate with Palestinian and the Arab Muslim nations to force Israel to abandon Judea, Samaria and Samaria so a Palestinian State could be invented with Jerusalem as its capital.

    Are you getting the feeling that the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu was merely a public relations event but, in reality, Netanyahu was threatened to quietly go along with Obama’s Islamic plans for the region? Or else?!

    To conclude: Obama has consistently refused to actually stop Iran’s development of Nuclear Weapons and, instead, used a policy of “outreach” to build friendship with Iran and Syria – even as they supplied the Terrorists to kill American soldiers.

    Clearly, Obama will be a one-term President unless Congress impeaches him before 2012.

Comments are closed.

Donate to

Support American Values...