RESIGNATION OR IMPEACHMENT - TheCypressTimes

The Constitution, a document President Obama has apparently not familiarized himself with, as it is the guiding light for America, is being turned down, as if on a dimmer switch, by B. Hussein Obama. Yes, the President of the United States of America has worked around the Constitution, defied the Constitution and flat out chosen to challenge Congress and the American people by being a criminal.

The fifth amendment to the Constitution states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Please pay particular attention to the phrase, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.

B. Hussein Obama and his minions dictated the government settlement of two publicly held companies, General Motors and Chrysler, in their government controlled bankruptcy. After firing the head of a publicly held company, GM and replacing him with someone else, the Obama administration dictated that shareholders would only receive twenty eight cents on the dollar for their investment, despite being secured lien holders. This action is in direct violation of established bankruptcy law and practice. B. Hussein Obama’s actions have also violated the due process portion of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. The United Auto Workers union was told it would receive .68 cents on the dollar from the taxpayers, not because they had invested a dime in the companies, but because Obama owed them a favor for their support presidential candidacy. According to the terms of the bankruptcy as set by Obama, .68 cents per dollar of what would normally belong to investors is going to an entity that invested ZERO, a clear violation of the terms of the 5th Amendment, under the due process clause as well as the just compensation clause. This action, in and of itself, is impeachable. B. Hussein Obama committed strong arm robbery when they took money from the rightful creditors and gave it to the UAW, which had no claim to it.

The top officials in all three branches of the government, judicial, congressional and most importantly executive were aware of this, in fact, the state run media, that never reports anything negative about Obama was all over covering the Messiah's saving of the auto industry. President Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment for knowledge and cover-up of a politically motivated break in. President Clinton was impeached for lying to a jury about an affair. Both of these incidents with other Presidents pale in comparison to President Obama taking money from investors and giving it to his union cronies, through the judiciary branch of government. President Obama should be in jail and impeached for his actions, but it doesn’t stop there.

B. Hussein Obama has clearly broken the law, regarding the materials sent to schools, for his speech on September 8th, 2009. The instruction of what to do and how to do it is also in violation of this code:

20 U.S.C. § 3403. (Pub.L. 96-88, Title I, § 103, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 670) United States Code Title 20. Education Chapter 48. Department of Education Subchapter I. General Provisions § 3403. Relationship with States (a) Rights of local governments and educational institutions It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the Department to protect the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies. The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States. (b) Curriculum, administration, and personnel; library resources No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.

Given that ignorance serves as no excuse for breaking the law, combined with the fact that Obama is an attorney, and if you hear him tell it, a Constitutional attorney, he has no excuse for his actions. Like any criminal, B. Hussein Obama, should be held accountable for his actions.

Mr. President, to maintain the dignity of the position you hold, to maintain the character, dignity and to keep America as the shining beacon of hope on the hill, it is imperative that you resign your position immediately. You are a criminal, if we are to judge you by your actions.

Congress, it is imperative that should B. Hussein Obama not resign his position as President of the United States of America immediately, that he be impeached for his criminality. If you fail to file articles of impeachment against B. Hussein Obama, you will be guilty of violating your oath of office, that clearly states that you will defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While it is not clear if Obama falls under the “foreign” or “domestic” portion of your oath, it is clear that he is an enemy, who has committed crimes that must be adjudicated by Congress.

Thank you, in advance, for your honor, in adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America and performing the duties you have been elected to perform. I understand, that for most of you (Pelosi, Rangel, Reid, et. Al.) this is uncharted territory. Do not let that scare you, for you must do your duty or you too will be conspiratorially related to these crimes. And, let's face it, most of you are in on the price fixing and bankruptcy corruption issue.

Bill Turner
US Western Regional Coordinator
The Patriotic Resistance
www.resistnet.com

Author Disclaimer: The views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the staff, editor or publisher of The Cypress Times. The author is solely responsible for the content of this column.

Post A Comment

* Indicates required information

Comments

10 comments for this article

Reverse Comment Order

Added: September 07, 2009. 02:37 PM CST

Look back at this thread, and you will see that an anonymous conservative mentioned a coup first. I'm responding to him.

I never asserted that Canada has the best medical care in the world. Depending on the measure you use, sometimes one country comes out first, sometimes another. For me, I would say that total population average life expectancy at birth (highest: 82.6 years, Japan, socialized system; US 79.1 years) and infant mortality per thousand live births (lowest: Iceland, 2.0; US 4.8) were good measures of the quality of a healthcare system. What would you say?

I am sick, however of seeing your comments everywhere. You have your section or column, right? So why don't you spread your propaganda there and see if anyone will read it.

If any of my comments violate any of the policies of this site, let John know and I am sure he will willingly delete them. Indeed, if they do violate the policies, I would support their being deleted.

There is no policy that says that liberals can't comment on conservative threads, or vice versa. If you want to go play only with people exactly like you, try FreeRepublic, which doesn't allow comments from liberals.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: September 07, 2009. 02:32 PM CST

Misc.

Hmmm, and here I was thinking that it was the Legislative Branch(elected officials) that wrote and passed laws. Kinda sucks that the P.A.T.R.O.I.T Act is still in place from the Cheney/Gonzales administration. What with the telecommunication company's caving in on your/our Constitutional Rights to Privacy and such. Oh well, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem, right?

cem

Alert a moderator

Added: September 07, 2009. 02:00 PM CST

Zander

You're the only one (other than perhaps Obama and his Civilian army) considering a military coup - the title of this article is "Resignation or Impeachment". In your overwhelming desire to prove that you're the smartest kid in the room, you're showing quite the opposite. While don't you stick to writing your little fantasy column where Canada has the best medical care in the world and everyone holds hands and sings songs together and stop being a jackal attacking every sane person who writes for this site. I enjoy reading the Faith Section, the news and the political opinion and most of the columns. I am sick, however of seeing your comments everywhere. You have your section or column, right? So why don't you spread your propaganda there and see if anyone will read it.

Bill Jacoby

Alert a moderator

Added: September 07, 2009. 12:03 PM CST

What bankruptcy law forbids the unions to recover any assets in an agreement like this (which if I remember rightly was before the bankruptcy declaration)? Just think...with just one specific cite you can prove me wrong about this!

If they're receiving a rate of "68c on the dollar", they must originally have put in a dollar, and have some "skin in the game"; otherwise that part of your article makes no sense.

On education, read this again more carefully: "No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law."

This section says that no program the Secretary of Education provides can be construed so as to direct, supervise or control the curriculum of any school: i.e., he can't make their receiving of funds under any federal program conditional on changes to curriculum. If Obama were forcing the schools to introduce these materials, instead of leaving it up to them; or if he was conditioning federal funds on their using the materials; then you would have a case. Is he? I don't think he is, but please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: September 07, 2009. 11:50 AM CST

Demanding is not a coup. Unseating by military force is.

Bill, don't you realize that in every military coup across the world, the military claims to take control in the name of the people and to defend the Constitution against the abuses of the democratically elected government of the day? That's the routine. It's what they always say.

If the Founders had wanted to allow for the possibility of a military coup in the Constitution, they would have done so. They had an example before them, of the military coup in 1647-8 in England, which used precisely the same arguments as you just did. They didn't.

Instead, they set it up so that Congress had the power to impeach a president peacefully, and the people had the power to elect a different president via the electoral college every four years. You don't like what they did, then amend the Constitution, but don't pretend that it contains any other way to remove a sitting president.

You should be embarrassed that a US permanent resident like myself knows this better than you, a citizen, do. But you won't be.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: September 07, 2009. 11:20 AM CST

Its not a coup

Demanding that a U.S. President actually follow his oath of office is not a coup. Why can't you understand that? Oh, yeah you're a foreigner who is used to the government being your daddy, and your mommy. That's not how it works here - or at least CONSTITUTIONALLY that's not how its supposed to work. The people are in charge - not the elected officials - therefore NO COUP. If anyone is starting a coup why don't you ask "The One" why he needs a Civilian Army with all the same force as the U.S. military. You think he wants that to keep the constitution safe?

Bill Jacoby

Alert a moderator

Added: September 07, 2009. 10:44 AM CST

As Usual Zander

You manage to twist the issues.

Bankruptcy law and established practice mandate the lienholders get first crack at the assetts, not the unions, who have no skin in the game.

The speech is not the breaking of the law, the providing of teaching materials and curriculum is. He has broken the law already by providing curriculum.

Lets change your name to Top, because you spin like one constantly. You could replace Robert Gibbs.

It is sad that you defend the left no matter what. Free your mind and you can free yourself.

Bill Turner

Alert a moderator

Added: September 07, 2009. 10:29 AM CST

A military coup...

...would also be against the Constitution. If you care about the Constitution, you can't go around supporting coups.

Plus, of course, you shouldn't assume necessarily that the military is an institution that is monolithically conservative and anti-Obama. The late 2008 Military Times poll asked active-duty service members whether they felt optimistic or pessimistic about Obama as commander-in-chief. 33% said optimistic, 25% said pessimistic, with 35% uncertain and 8% having no opinion. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: September 07, 2009. 08:26 AM CST

Ask in one hand......

Would be really nice if Zero or the Democratic controlled congress gave a rip about the Constitution. They Don't. We can ask all we want for them to do what is right, but that is not in their plans. I NEVER thought in my entire life I would ever have thoughts of how nice a military coup would be.. in the U.S.

Anonymous

Alert a moderator

Added: September 07, 2009. 07:42 AM CST

That's better, Mr. Turner.

You've produced an article that directly quotes the laws you feel Obama has broken, and specifies exactly what results you would like to see. It's a significant improvement over your usual ranting screeds. It also makes it much easier to understand what you are basing your ideas on.

You charge Obama with violating the "takings clause", which was also the key clause in the infamous Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London back in 2005. I feel that your argument is weak, because the "taking" is questionable.

Remember, in the context of a bankruptcy, bondholders would be wholly wiped out. That means that there may well be deals where getting 28c on the dollar for your investment might, under certain circumstances, look good. The government doesn't guarantee the returns of bondholders who invest in GM.

The Supreme Court has never confronted a Takings claim precisely like the one you talk about, but case law is pretty clear that Congress has broad power to rebalance liabilities among private parties without running afoul of the Takings Clause. E.g., Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 467 U.S. 211 (1986).

My guess is that a Court would conclude that, given the uncertainty of the value of the bonds, Congress could reasonably conclude that this agreement would be unlikely to reduce the fair market value of bondholders' rights, and hence did not constitute a taking. See also Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 122 S.Ct. 1465 (2002).

http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/SandBar/1.1takings.htm

You may well feel that the law should be different, and I am not myself fully satisfied with how the Supreme Court rules on takings claims. But the Supreme Court, not us, is the final arbiter of what is constitutional, and I find it highly improbable that they would rule against Obama here.

Now, on the education side: You correctly quote the law as saying, "No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system ... or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law."

This does not say that they can exercise no influence whatsoever. My understanding is that schools are free to not show the President's address to the nation's schoolchildren if they don't want to. Even if that is not so, it is not clear from what you have quoted that requiring them to show it would not be "authorized by law".

If there is a law that does forbid that - and previous presidents have done similar things - please let us know what it is.

I'm not saying you're wrong here, only that you have not yet presented anything that shows that what Obama is proposing to do is actually against the law.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Reverse Comment Order