Impeach the stonewalling Obama

Impeach the stonewalling Obama

June 1st, 2010

By Joseph Farah, WND

 Obama needs to be impeached

I can think of many reasons to impeach Barack Obama.

Of course, this House of Representatives is never going to do that between now and January, when many of the members will be leaving office, most of them against their wishes.

But it’s actually time to start calling for impeachment.

There are dozens of crimes and misdemeanors to consider, with the dozens of brazen extra-constitutional actions of this White House – from health care to auto-company takeovers to bank bailouts.

And, of course, there is the ever-present controversy over his total failure even to prove his constitutional eligibility for office.

But Obama’s stonewalling over the allegations of Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., is the most Nixonian reason of all.

Now the shoe is clearly on the other foot.

While Democrats were prepared to frog-march Richard Nixon out of the White House in the 1970s because of his refusal to allow an independent counsel to investigate Watergate, today’s Democrats expect the American people to take the administration’s word that Sestak, one of their own, is lying when he said he was offered a bribe to bow out of the U.S. Senate race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

Late last week, the White House finally released its explanation of the job offer. The claim is that Rahm Emanuel sent Bill Clinton to meet with Sestak to offer an unpaid advisory position – not the “high-ranking position” Sestak had claimed.

Read More:

The Sestak Stonewall

The Sestak Stonewall

Posted By Dick Morris On May 27, 2010 @ 12:01 am In FrontPage | 6 Comments

Rep. Joe Sestak [1], the winner of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, says quite openly and repeatedly that he was offered a job by the White House if he would drop out of the race against Sen. Arlen Specter. Having secured Specter’s conversion to the Democratic Party, thus giving the party a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Obama administration obviously sought to keep its word to Specter that it would do its utmost to deliver the Democratic nomination to him. According to Sestak, that included a job offer.

Who made the offer? What position was offered? And when did it happen? Sestak, who was nominated on a platform of “transparency” refuses to answer any of these questions. The White House [1] admits that a conversation took place but won’t provide any details and insists that an “internal investigation” revealed that “nothing inappropriate” took place.

Or did it?

It is unlikely that Sestak was offered a job interviewing people for the census. Only a high-level job offer — a Cabinet post or an ambassadorship to a key country — would have sufficient gravitas to conceivably induce him to drop his primary challenge. Some have speculated that Sestak, a retired admiral, might have been offered the post of secretary of the navy. Others wonder that, since he is fluent in Russian, he was to be tapped for ambassador to Moscow.

And, before an offer of that magnitude were tendered, it would have had to have been cleared with the higher levels of the White House [1]. How could an offer of a Cabinet post have been made without consultation with the chief of staff?

And how was the offer made? It would have to have been proffered by somebody who Sestak could reasonably assume was speaking for the president and could deliver on his end of the deal. A lower-level official wouldn’t have that kind of clout.

Could the offer have been tendered by Rahm Emanuel [1] himself? It’s clearly his style.

But, could Rahm or anyone else have made such an offer without consulting the president himself? You can’t go around passing out Cabinet posts or ambassadorships without consulting the boss. Whatever position of that level the White House dangled in front of him, it would have to have been approved by the president.

And Sestak must have probed the person who conveyed the offer to ascertain its bona fides. He would reasonably have asked, “Did you clear this with the president?” Otherwise, why would he even consider such an offer?

The White House and Sestak are stonewalling questions from the media, and obviously, a Democratic controlled Congress is not about to go poking around asking about the proposed deal.

So how could the Republicans break it open?

The weak link here is Sestak himself, who claims that he embraces “transparency.” Fueled by his primary victory and the momentum it generated, Rasmussen has him four points ahead of Pat Toomey [1], the GOP candidate. This lead won’t hold up for long in the face of a refusal to respond to questions the public is entitled to have answered.

Toomey or the Republican Party or other independent expenditure groups should run ads throughout Pennsylvania asking these basic questions. They should tell Sestak that he ran on a platform of transparency and that its time to reveal who offered what and when.

Either Sestak is lying and there was never an offer, or the White House has skirted very close to having committed a crime or may have stepped over the edge. And, considering the stakes and the nature of what the offer would have had to have been, this scandal could reach very high indeed.

Is it a high crime and misdemeanor to offer someone something of value in return for withdrawing from a U.S. Senate race? We may be about to find out.

Sestak White House scandal called ‘impeachable offense’

Sestak White House scandal called ‘impeachable offense’

May 26th, 2010

By Drew Zahn, WND

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny9nfrrucNg&feature=player_embedded

If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there’s someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.

“This scandal could be enormous,” said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. “It’s Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it’s illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.

“Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel,” he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama’s apppoval, “that is a high crime and misdemeanor.”

“In other words, an impeachable offense?” Hannity asked.

“Absolutely,” said Morris.

The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter.

Sestak said he refused the offer. He continued in the Senate primary and defeated Specter for the Democratic nomination.

But Karl Rove, longtime White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the charge is explosive because of federal law.

“This is a pretty extraordinary charge: ‘They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,’” he said on Greta Van Susteran’s “On the Record” program on the Fox News Channel. “Look, that’s a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.

Read More:

Dhimmicrats on the March? Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.

Dhimmicrats on the March?

By Ken Blackwell

What’s a dhimmicrat, you say? It’s not the same thing as a Democrat. A dhimmicrat is a person who, while not Muslim himself, nonetheless clears the path for shariah law to be adopted and incorporated into otherwise free nations.

One prime example of this would be the Right Rev. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. Normally, you would think this top Anglican cleric, who lives in a palace in London, would appreciate Britain’s history as the world’s leader in the Rule of Law. As a minister of the Gospel, Mr. Williams might see his country as a Christian country. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, an immigrant from Pakistan, has tried heroically to awaken Britons to their peril. Bishop Nazir-Ali says English law and the Christian religion are the two things that make Britain great. And every day, dhimmicrats like Rowan Williams are trading away their birthright for a mess of pottage. Rowan Williams said Britain must accommodate herself to shariah law in large swaths of her urban neighborhoods.
Another example of dhimmicrats would be the Pentagon bureaucrats who recently banned Rev. Franklin Graham from addressing Christians who work there because Rev. Graham has been critical of Muslim terrorists. Does anyone else think it’s weird that the Pentagon — which is supposed to be leading the worldwide war on terror — jihadist terror — finds a Christian evangelist too hot to handle?
Jimmy Carter may be the leading dhimmicrat in the world. Carter, of course, won his Nobel Peace Prize not just for his work in reconciling Israelis and Egyptians in the famous Camp David Accords of 1978. If the Nobelers wanted simply to honor that achievement, they might have bestowed their once-prestigious prize on Carter in ’79 or ’80. Such a prize would probably have made a nice consolation present for Carter when Ronald Reagan beat him like a drum in the 1980 elections.
Instead, the Nobel Committee waited for two decades, during which time Carter has outdone himself in denunciations of Israel. Carter likened Israel’s security fence to South African apartheid. He has spent his post-presidency maligning the Jewish state while kowtowing to Arab “leaders.” These so-called leaders never have to face the voters. Maybe that’s why Dhimmi Carter likes them.
What is dhimmitude, anyway? It’s the status — or lack of status– that is accorded to non-believers in Muslim-dominant countries. Dhimmis get to pay special taxes for not being Muslim. They get to be excluded from many educational and professional opportunities. They get to have their churches burned and their communities attacked. If you want to know more about what life is like under dhimmitude, just ask the Copts of Egypt. But ask these hardy Christians here. Don’t ask them there.
Eric Holder is a leading dhimmicrat in government today. Our Attorney General has yet to rule out a civilian trial in Manhattan for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad boasted of how he beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl. A more loathsome human being would be hard to imagine. But Eric Holder is giving Khalid Sheikh Muhammad all the rights accorded to American citizens accused of mass murder. Why? Why, too, should Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, be given a Miranda warning and allowed to escape trial before a military tribunal? Our A.G. has no coherent answer to these questions.
The answer is that dhimmicrats fear to offend. Fear drives them to make concession after concession. They are forever apologizing. The Crusades? Don’t even mention the word. That can set them off. Jihadists today complain about Crusaders’ cruelty in the 12th century. (That’s odd. I don’t remember riots when Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 Muslims in his forty-year reign of terror.) In Britain, timorous town councilors even banned Winnie the Pooh because the character of Piglet might offend some residents. These councilors are dhimmicrats all. The dhimmicrats are on the march.

Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. He serves on the board of directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, and National Rifle Association and is co-author of The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.