GOA: OPPOSE JOE MANCHIN'S VETERANS GUN BAN AND NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY

OUR VETERANS AND WE, THE LAW ABIDING AMERICAN PUBLIC, WHO FOLLOW THE RULES AND THE RULEBOOK (THE US CONSTITUTION), EXPECT MORE OF OUR GOVERNMENT THAN THIS.  THIS IS CRIMINAL.  IT IS IMPEACHABLE.  IT IS A HIGH CRIME OF TREASON.

Gun Owners of America Oppose Joe Manchin’s Veterans Gun Ban and National Gun Registry   Reports out of Capitol Hill reveal that just-reelected turncoat West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin is about to stick a big knife in the back of American gun owners.  And to make matters worse, he's lying about what he’s doing. Both Manchin and House anti-gun crazy Carolyn McCarthy are claiming to be “working with NRA” to enact gun bans and national gun registries.  NRA says flatly that Manchin is lying, and we believe he is. (The Hill, 1/24/13) Ironically, Manchin was the “gun owner's best friend” on November 5 -- the day before his reelection to a six-year term let him to pull a great big “gotcha” on those West Virginians who were tricked into believing his representations. But make no mistake about it:  Joe Manchin’s draft would impose a gun ban on veterans and would set up the framework for a national gun registry. 150,000 honest law-abiding veterans are currently in the NICS system.  They didn’t do anything wrong; they honorably served their country.  But when they sought VA counseling for a traumatic combat experience, the VA appointed a fiduciary to oversee their fiscal affairs and then took away their guns.  And, again, there are 150,000 honest veterans in the system. New York Senator Charles Schumer viciously fought a Coburn amendment on the DoD bill which would require that veterans get their day in court before their rights were taken away from them, and he won. What the Manchin bill is about is insuring that “bad guys” like veterans can’t get guns.  And, under Barack Obama's “Executive Action #1,” the NICS list could soon include tens of millions of additional soldiers, police, firemen, and other law-abiding Americans. But veteran disarmament is not the only problem with Joe Manchin’s gun ban. Manchin's bill would set the framework for a national gun registry and impose a chokehold on gun sales.  There are at least four big reasons for this: FIRST:  Every gun owner in the country would have a “Form 4473.”  Increasingly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives are going into gun dealerships and illegally copying all of those 4473's. SECOND:  The FBI refuses to tell us how or whether it's complying with federal law by destroying the Brady Check names, rather than keeping them for a national gun registry. THIRD:  As it is, the Brady Check system is breaking down on days such as last year’s Black Friday -- outlawing all gun purchases.  If you have to drive 200 miles from your farm to sell your gun to your neighbor, this effectively outlaws any efforts to sell or buy a gun. FOURTH:  Increasingly, the FBI is blocking transfers because someone’s name is “similar” to someone else.  When the legal purchaser complains, the FBI's response is “Sue us!” ACTION:  Please click here to contact your U.S. Senators.  Ask them to oppose Joe Manchin’s veterans gun ban and national gun registry.  Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable. Please forward this e-mail to friends and family Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 703-321-8585 www.gunowners.org Contact Form If this alert was forwarded to you, you can subscribe to receive alerts directly by clicking here.    If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.

WHAT'S BEING DONE ABOUT HIGH CRIMES FROM THE ADMINISTRATION? NOT A DAMN THING!

http://minutemennews.com/2013/01/whats-being-done-about-high-crimes-from-the-obama-admin-not-a-dn-thing/

OBAMA REFUSES (ASSERTS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE) TO TURN OVER SENSITIVE FAST/FURIOUS DOCS - HE SHOULD BE ARRESTED FOR HIGH CRIMES AND TREASON TODAY - HE'S AN ACCESSORY TO MURDER AND SO IS HOLDER!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/holder-contempt/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

OUTRAGEOUS - SOMEONE IMPEACH OBAMA FOR NOT FASTTRACKING THE DRILLING OF OUR PETROLEUM RESOURCES! THIS IS A HIGH CRIME AND NOT A MISDEMEANOR!

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/02/22/florida-drivers-shelling-out-nearly-6-a-gallon-at-some-gas-stations/

GINGRICH'S BILLIONAIRE DONOR INVESTIGATED FOR TIES TO CHINESE ORGANIZED CRIME.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/gingrichs-billionaire-donor-investigated-for-ties-to-chinese-organized-crime/

PRAVDA: BILDERBERGERS ISSUE ASSASSINATION ORDERS - BILDERBERG SWISS BANKSTERS PAY THE CONTRACT KILL FEES

http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/topic/234617-bilderbergers-issue-assassination-orders%3B-bilderberg-swiss-banksters-pay-the-contract-kill-fees/

Interesting article from the Russian paper, PRAVDA.

RED ALERT TO VOTERS: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PLANNING NOVEMBER VOTE FRAUD

http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/doj-whistleblower-obama-administration-is-planning-november-vote-fraud/

Remember what I said about the absentee ballots in Staten Island, NY not being counted unless there is a recount?

BETTER WATCH OUT! OBAMA AIN'T NO SANTA CLAUS.

I hope you will all take more interest in your polling places; if you are intimidated, call the police and get photos on your cell phones or cameras. Alert your supervisors of election. Go to your newspapers. Demand recounts. This is illegal; a federal crime.

This ruthless fraud in the White House will do anything to skew the results.

Get on talk radio programs beforehand and warn the public about this.

START AN INTERNET PETITION: OTHERS FEEL THE SAME WAY. DO SOMETHING!

http://petitiononline.com/


HOW ABOUT "IMPEACH OBAMA" FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, INCLUDING HIS STANCE ON CLOSING THE BORDERS AND HIS INEPTITUDE AND DELIBERATE MISHANDLING OF THE BP OIL LEAK?

THROW OBAMACARE IN THERE, TOO.

AND HIS COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND HIS HEADLONG RUN TO SOCIALISM?

OBAMA MUST NEVER IGNORE THE "SHALLS". READ THIS SHATTERING POST FRO REDSTATE REPORT ON THE BP OIL LEAK

http://www.redstatereport.com/2010/05/gulf-spilldo-nothing-president-has-a-responsibility/

HE SLAPS YOU IN THE FACE WITH THIS EVERY DAY - OBAMA PLEDGES INTERNATIONAL ORDER

http://www.infowars.com/obama-pledges-international-order/

And we don't stop him.

And we don't know how.

And we don't act.

Because we don't believe we can act together and get him impeached.

The smackdown.

How sweet the phrase.

http://www.infowars.com/shocking-admission-on-killing-civilians-by-top-us-general-almost-completely-ignored-by-corporate-media/

http://www.alternet.org/story/146251/shocking_admission_on_killing_civilians_by_top_us_general_almost_completely_ignored_by_corporate_media

SOETOROCARE - CRIME AGAINST AMERICA FROM NATURAL NEWS

http://www.naturalnews.com/028424_health_care_reform_medicine.html

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.

From Jon Roland's excellent site - The Constitution Society on what constitutes high crimes when preparing impeachment

http://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.txt

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

Totalitarian Obama Regime - Bring it down with IMPEACHMENT

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/

If what he is doing in Copenhagen, Cap and Trade and Obamacare isn't classified as high crimes and misdemeanors (there are few misdemeanors but there are a lot of Constitutional HIGH CRIMES), and we don't impeach him, we deserve to be slaves.

When you are talking with the SENIOR AIDE TO YOUR SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE,
ADD IMPEACHMENT AS THE LAST LINE TO YOUR CONVERSATION.

TOLL FREE TO CONGRESS: 877-851-6437

President Obama’s athletic prowess is becoming a real advantage in office as he recently has taken the duck-and -run approach to the media. Instead of defending himself in front of the open microphone, he is dispatching his cronies to defend his policy positions. Our commander-in-chief isn’t living up to his campaign promise of presidential access and transparency.

Obama hasn’t held a formal press conference since July 22. At that event he infamously gaffed that Cambridge Police had acted stupidly when confronting Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. at his home. Since that time, Obama has avoided off-the-cuff question and answer sessions, preferring to rely on his teleprompter for scripted remarks. On his recent trip to Asia, Obama limited questions at his joint press

conferences to one each from a U.S. reporter and a foreign journalist. At his “joint press statement” with Chinese President Hu Jintao, no questions were allowed.

This is all shocking given the hyperbole that was spewed during the campaign from the media, who referred to Obama as the ‘Great Communicator.’ While the press were admiring Obama’s rhetorical skills, behind the scenes, handlers were scripting all events and carefully controlling the message.

Rather than running one of the most open and transparent administrations ever, team Obama is running one of the most disingenuous and scripted. As White House Communications Director Anita Dunn boasted, “We controlled the media coverage of the campaign.”

Obama is running a charade. If he were genuine about what he is trying to accomplish, he would not be so afraid to face tough questions. Obama fears that if he makes himself available to the press, he will make another blooper and be caught in his lies.

This past week, Obama proved himself again to be a liar. After pointedly declaring in his speech to the joint session of Congress that “my plan will not include taxpayer funding of abortion,” Obama lobbied Congress in support of abortion funding in the health reform bill. His administration has even lobbied against the pro-life amendments to these bills. Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs argued that these health bills are not the president’s, therefore “his plan does not include taxpayer funding of abortion.” This is a laughable explanation at best, and one that Obama clearly does not want to say himself. Therefore he is avoiding a press conference like the plague.

The American people are catching on and it is one reason why his approval rating is down to 47 percent in the most recent Gallup poll.

After his speech on Afghanistan left many questions unanswered, team Obama dispatched aides including Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, Secretary of State Clinton and many others to explain what Obama meant to say in his speech. In his speech, Obama stated that we would withdraw from Afghanistan in July, 2011. His advisors are back-tracking for him and have since clarified that he didn’t really mean what he said. Advisors clarified versions reads: We will examine the conditions and may begin drawing down our troop levels, not begin a withdrawal then. Obama himself has remained mum on the subject after the speech. Great Communicators don’t usually make vague pronouncements and let their subordinates clumsily explain the details, but that is exactly what Obama is doing.

Obama even recently closed from the media a meeting with federal employees to discuss transparency and public information requests. His underlings have also held high-profile negotiations with pharmaceutical companies behind closed doors, even though he promised during the campaign that he would televise meetings like these on CSPAN.

The Obama White House has become like a bad reality TV show. Obama is maintaining his appearance of celebrity and his face is everywhere, but at the same time he is refusing to answer tough questions from reporters. Obama is just a performer dressed as President of the United States.

Warm regards,

Remove Charlie Rangel from office. Now.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/remove-rangel-high-crimes-new-allegations-rangel-admits-failure-to-report-nearly-a-million-dollars.html