HAWAII STATE REGISTRAT PUBLICLY CERTIFIED TO AZ SOS KEN BENNETT THAT OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS LEGALLY NON-VALID AND THE WHITE HOUSE IMAGE IS A FORGERY

 EVEN THE MOST CAUTIOUS OF BLOGGERS CAN MAKE A MISTAKE ONCE IN A WHILE - AND JIM AND I HAVE TO EAT CROW ON THIS ONE.  HERE IS HIS RETRACTION!
 http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/retraction-hawaii-state-registrar-alvin-onaka-certified-obama-long-form-bc-a-forgery/

http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/hawaii-state-registrar-alvin-onaka-has-publicly-certified-to-az-sos-ken-bennett-that-barack-obamas-hi-birth-certificate-is-legally-non-valid-and-the-white-house-image-is-a-forgery/

THIS SHOULD TAKE THE WHOLE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DOWN! EMAIL SHOWS STATE DEPARTMENT REJECTING REQUEST OF SECURITY TEAM AT US EMBASSY IN LIBYA

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/

Of course we know the Obama administration and Hillary's apologist-for-Muslim State Department are responsible - but are they going to be held responsible for murder?

How do we insure that this takes this abhorrent, corrupt, demonic conglomeration of traitors, thieves, liars,  murderers DOWN and make them pay for their crimes?

NEW HAMPSHIRE: HOMEOWNER ARRESTED FOR FIRING WARNING SHOT DURING BURGLARY

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nh-homeowner-arrested-for-firing-warning-shot-during-burglary/

25 REPORTS THAT CAN PUT YOU ON THE TERROR LIST - UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!

Sign is just past the Winn Dixie on Highway 231 approaching Panama City, FL.






http://www.activistpost.com/2012/02/25-reports-that-can-put-you-on-terror.html

We are being pushed into a "situation", methinks.

http://digg.com/news/technology/25_more_ridiculous_fbi_lists_you_might_be_a_terrorist_if

Squeezed.

Oh, and the snitch thing? Look at the picture above for a Crimestoppers billboard. That's all about Napolitano's "See something/Say something". Only problem is, it isn't coming from the parents - it's coming from a business that is closely associated with our local law enforcement, and its pushing snitching for a possible reward, targeted clearly to teens with cell phones that text.

Parents - take a look at this. I think (my opinion/my blog) that this is intolerable. These are posted at several locations in Bay County. I think this in totally inappropriate and I hope you'll feel the same way

Take control of your children - this should be coming from a lesson taught by you, and not by a private investigator, luring the kids to become informants.

SOROS AND SUNSTEIN PUSHING PRE-CRIME ARRESTS/WEBSITE SHUTDOWNS

And you won't believe why...LISTEN! Do you REALLY want the Soros puppet in chief for a president?

DOES OBAMA REALLY THINK WE'RE GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT HE JUST SAID ABOUT THE BANKS?

It's the old "repeat a lie often enough and the masses will believe it" crap.  But what do you expect out of an inveterate liar?





Today, from our sister site RealEcon TV, we have a video of President Obama, who is a creature of Wall St. himself, proclaiming that the '...banks broke no laws."  Mixing sub-prime mortgages into a derivatives package and giving it a triple A credit rating is fraud. Is fraud no longer illegal?   Obama even squirms a little as he defends his buddies in banking, almost as if the lies tasted foul coming out of his mouth.  Max Keiser breaks it down for us on the Keiser Report...  Video:  http://www.realecontv.com/page/5413.html - Brasscheck  P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and videos with friends and colleagues.   That's how we grow. Thanks. 

CRIMINAL GARDENING IN GEORGIA - WHY?

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/food/criminal-gardening.html

OBAMA IS LEADING AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

http://polymontana.com/2011/08/20/obama-is-leading-an-international-criminal-organization/

ICE BOSS: MEXICAN BORDER IS SECURE - CRIME IS PART OF LIFE IN AMERICA

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/crime-part-life-america-and-border-secur

For Pete's sake - you corrupt nitwits in Washington should fire this man!

Hell! WE SHOULD FIRE THIS MAN!

Let him sit in the desert in his suit, unarmed on a cartel/illegal route and see what happens.

This is complete insanity.

CHARLIE RANGEL CHARGED WITH MULTIPLE ETHICS VIOLATIONS - WATCH HIM TURN ON MSNBC REPORTER

http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/rangel-charged-with-multiple-ethics-violations-watch-him-turn-on-msnbc-reporter/

Don't you love it when You get caught?

I bet he's hell to live with these days!

ONE NATION UNDER ARREST

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/21/one-nation-under-arrest/

Take a look at this blog - It reads like a smorgasbord menu of

miseries the US has not ever faced before, and it's all because of Dubya and the Obamessiah.

This is pure shit.

Sorry. I don't feel very ladylike tonight.

This guy should be impeached for crimes against the country, and his henchman run out of DC and never recycled into something new.

We are almost to the endtime of our country.

Are you willing to let that happen?

Read these articles - each is progressively (well, that's a four letter word) worse.
And the problem lies in our faces in the mirror, looking back at us.

Go look at your children, comfortable in their beds.

All over the world - Europe, Asia, Australasia, south and central America, Africa - look at your children and see what you have done to them by letting these criminals - these tyrants - do to you.

The meaning of 'HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS"

Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

by Jon Roland, Constitution Society

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".

The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath". We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.

periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.

periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.

iurator, oris, m., a swearer.

iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.

ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.

per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime.

An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.

It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a "high crime or misdemeanor", it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.

An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr's words, to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied. The massacre at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and many, many other illegal or excessive assaults by federal agents, and the failure of the president to take action against the offenders, is more than enough to justify impeachment and removal from office on grounds of dereliction of duty. To these we could add the many suspicious incidents that indicate covered up crimes by federal agents, including the suspicious deaths of persons suspected of being knowledgeable of wrongdoing by the president or others in the executive branch, or its contractors.

The impeachment and removal process should be a debate on the entire field of proven and suspected misconduct by federal officials and agents under this president, and if judged to have been excessive by reasonable standards, to be grounds for removal, even if direct complicity cannot be shown.

Home » Selection & Removal » Impeachment

Original URL: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm | Text Version Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society Original date: 1999 January 16 — Updated: 2003 January 8

Criminality in Copenhagen

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/12/more_climaterelated_criminalit.html

Break-ins. Stolen data. Stolen proof of lies and manipulation?

Whoa! Look at this - The Swamp List

which appears on Rep. Jim Guest's website. Look at this laundry list of pond scum - Your politicians at work!

http://repcloakroom.house.gov/swamplist/