Kagan Lied
Dec 24, 2011 Political
Associate Justice Elana Kagan lied to the Senate during her confirmation hearings and she should be impeached for this. Her lie was about her involvement in Obamacare prior to her selection to serve on the Supreme Court. Kagan lied about her involvement and recently released documents show that she was involved in the legal issues and that the DOJ tried cover this up by asseeting that she had been walled off from the issue. Many of the documents have been redacted so there is no telling what deeper involvement she had. The Senate should request the unredacted documents and dig as deep into this as it can.
Doug Ross does a great job detailing the documents, Kagan’s response to written questions about her involvement in Obamacare and the DOJ decpetion of “walling” her off.
Ross details how Kagan was asked (in writing) during the confirmation process about her involvement in Obamacare including being asked if she offered her opinions, views or comments (and specifically about a Constitutional challenge of the process of deem and pass). Kagan denied that she had done any of these things but the documents show otherwise. One such occurrence of her involvement took place thirteen days before she sat in front of the Senate judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearings.
Kagan lied, period. Not only did she lie but the DOJ tried to cover up her involvement. This folks, is illegal and she needs to be impeached (and heads at the DOJ need to roll).
Before she is impeached she needs to recuse herself from any debate regarding Obamacare IAW 28 USC 455.
This gang of criminals needs to be put in its place, and soon.
First she recuses, then she is impeached.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: confirmation, doj, doug ross. mark levin, elena kagan, impeach, lies, obamacare, recuse
Why Didn’t Obama Consult With Congress?
Mar 20, 2011 Political
Barack Obama committed the United States to aggressive action against Libya and our military has launched hundreds of missiles against that country. Most Democrats are publicly supporting Mr. Obama even though these very Democrats were quite vocal in their opposition to George Bush involving us in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The big difference is that George Bush requested and received approval from Congress for the use of military force. Barack Obama did no such thing. Some Democrats believe he ignored his responsibilities when he acted unilaterally and without consulting Congress.
These Democrats are not happy with Mr. Obama and the word impeachment has been thrown around:
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses. Politico
While some of these Democrats are upset at the use of force it would appear as if they are equally or more upset that Obama did not consult Congress. They have a valid point and one can only imagine what would have happened had Bush gone into Iraq or Afghanistan without getting the approval of Congress. We would have had Democrats becoming apoplectic over the whole issue and Bush would likely have been impeached.
As it is, Bush was hammered by the left and he received the approval of Congress for the use of military force. Even though he received that approval many wanted to impeach him for using force. Some Democrats appear to want the same but I highly doubt they will be successful.
Obama has too many supporters on the left who will ensure that all is well. He will be protected by the very people who railed against Bush.
The big question that has not been answered is why didn’t Obama discuss this with Congress? I believe that Mr. Obama feels that he in encumbered by Congress (as our Founders intended) and that he would simply rather do things in a way that bypass Congress. This is a pattern we have seen with him as he and his regime look for ways to accomplish an agenda without involving Congress.
He thinks the Constitution is too limiting so he works to avoid doing things in accordance with it.
Obama was worried about having Congress say no to his use of force (he does not have a majority in the House and any Democrat defections would be bad) so he went ahead without involving that body,
Now he will have to face the music.
Or will he?
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, impeach, laws, libya, lies, Military, Obama
Add Blago To The Unemployment Numers
Jan 29, 2009 Political
The Illinois Senate booted Rod Blagojevich from office today after his impeachment hearing ended with the now former governor giving an impassioned speech about being innocent. The legislature had to boot him. He gave the appearance of impropriety and, more importantly, he focused a spotlight on the corrupt political machine there.
The Senate was well within its right to boot him. His claim of a presumption of innocence is only applicable in court. The public can call him guilty all it wants and the Senate does not have to assume he is innocent. They only have to decide if he did things that warrant removal from office.
Interestingly, this moronic statement was made by impeachment prosecutor David Ellis:
“”He doesn’t think one minute about the people, just himself,” he said, asserting that the impeachment was for the people, not to punish Blagojevich as he had suggested.
“He has a Constitutional right not to thrown in jail without a fair trial,” he said. “But he does not have a Constitutional right to be governor. That is not a right; it’s a privilege and he forfeited that right. He has abused the power of his office.” Fox News [emphasis mine]
I agree that being governor is a privilege and not a right. But this guy makes that claim and then says Blago lost that right.
How did he lose a right he did not have?
This was a foregone conclusion and Blago’s things were already packed up and ready to be shipped out.
Is this a new precedent? If Illinois boots all politicians who give the appearance of impropriety they will have no one left in office.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: blago, corruption, impeach, privilege, right