S?bado, 04 de septiembre de 2010

By Tom TancredoSource: The Washington Times, editorial by Tom Tancredo

Excerpts from the editorial:

I?ve always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.

For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That?s why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.

Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law.

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.

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.

Mr. Obama?s most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans? desire to negotiate a ?comprehensive? immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.

Mr. Tancredo goes on to make the argument that Obama is impeachable because of his refusal to protect the United States from foreign invasion. You can read the whole story here..

Comment by American Grand Jury:

Impeachment is a classic view from those that still don?t grasp the crux of the issue. Obama is not a legitimate president. He is not a ?natural born? citizen and was never qualified to even run on the ballot. Obama was legally challenged on this ?long? before he was elected. The Courts have done nothing but stall, sweep it under the rug and generally rule against the Constitution.

Obama needs to be removed by rule of law, not impeached. However, if our uninformed American public can?t get their minds around any other concept than impeachment I guess it will have to suffice. Impeachment will bring up the eligibility issue in a Congressional trial setting. The biggest downside is the word ?Congressional.? These criminals are not about to bury one of their own ? however, the herd that will arrive after the election could make things very uncomfortable for ZERO. Time will tell.

The good news: The Washington Times is rated one of the top newspapers in the world. They are credible, even with many conservatives. This is still an editorial but such a story will resonate in all in Washington. Obama has to be pissed! That my friends, is worth is weight in gold.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar