Audio: The Blind Sheikh, Benghazi and the Case for Impeaching Obama administration officials

On today's program, I attempted to lay out the case for the impeachment of Obama administration officials over the Benghazi attacks based on what I believe to be smoking gun evidence that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president was involved in those attacks:

The above program expounded on information contained in the report below, published one day earlier:

By Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies

A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Those who attempt to discredit this document run into trouble when it is coupled with real-time video we uncovered on 9/13/12. In that video, gunmen at the scene of the attack can be heard declaring that they were sent by Mursi.

After weeks of attempting to push the narrative that a video was responsible, the Obama administration ultimately had to concede that the attacks in Benghazi were terrorist in nature. A few months after 9/11/12, the top lawyer for the Pentagon stated that the war on terror should be waged by "law enforcement and intelligence agencies".

Based on the Obama administration's standard, the Benghazi attacks should be treated as a crime instead of as an act of war. Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).

Since we're deciding who to indict, we must look at evidence of involvement in the attack. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President - Mohammed Mursi - is a good place to start. Our first two exhibits are both damning but when taken together, may just constitute a 'smoking gun'. EXHIBIT A is a video shot from a cell phone at the scene of the attacks. In this video, gunmen are seen running toward the camera, toward other gunmen. At one point - in Arabic which we have confirmed - one approaching gunman says, "Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!". Even though the video is in Arabic, you can discern the word "Mursi".



A Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) has now been brought forward by credible Arabic translator Raymond Ibrahim. This document discusses the confessions of six members of an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell who were arrested and found to be involved in the Benghazi attacks. Ibrahim reported the following about this document:

It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.

According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi...

Libyan Intelligence Document translated by Ibrahim (EXHIBIT B)

That the attack was planned and involved foreigners corroborates what Libyan President Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf told CBS News' Bob Scheiffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, September 16th (EXHIBIT C):

BOB SCHIEFFER: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that-- is that what you are telling us?

MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: It was planned-- definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who-- who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their-- since their arrival.

Relative to Mursi's alleged involvement, El-Magariaf provided only circumstantial evidence by identifying attackers as being "foreigners" but in retrospect, the Libyan president's claims that day are corroborated by the Libyan Intelligence document and the real-time video. It is for this reason that we request he be required to testify in front of the grand jury.

Also on September 16, 2012, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows and asserted the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video. Here are quotes from Rice's appearance during on ABC This Week, during which she said the following (EXHIBIT D):

“What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region was a result, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”

At a minimum, Rice was directing attention away from Mursi's involvement with this demonstrably false statement. A short time later, she went as far as directly defending Mursi:

"President Obama picked up the phone and talked to President Mursi in Egypt and as soon as he did that, the security provided to our personnel and our embassies dramatically increased... President Mursi has been out repeatedly and said that he condemns this violence. He's called off... and his people have called off any further demonstrations and have made very clear, that this has to stop."

Rice attempted to leave viewers with two impressions, one demonstrably false and the other belied by hard evidence:

1. A video was responsible
2. Mursi was not involved

At this point, we'd like to introduce an exchange between House Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy and Gregory Hicks, a whistleblower and the top-ranking State Department official in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was murdered (EXHIBIT E). This entire exchange is being introduced as evidence but we ask you, the Grand Jury, to pay particularly close attention at the 1:45 mark, when Gowdy introduces the name Beth Jones and reads from an email she sent to several State Department officials on September 12th, one day after the attack. In her email, Jones wrote the following:

"I spoke to the Libyan Ambassador... When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks - Ansar al-Sharia - is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."

On September 12th, Jones corroborated the claims made in the Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) that an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell was involved in the attacks, which corroborates the real-time video (EXHIBIT A). Yet, four days later - after this reality must have been further demonstrated, Rice's statements only served to cover-up the involvement of Mursi and Ansar al-Sharia by extension.

Moreover, Hicks charged that by contradicting the Libyan president, Rice seriously chilled the willingness of the Libyan government to allow FBI Investigators access to what the Obama administration viewed as a crime scene. As such, the crime scene was contaminated and Rice's lies may constitute an obstruction of justice charge.



The first indications that the Obama administration would decide to point to the video as being responsible for the Benghazi attacks appeared to come soon after it was learned that Sean Smith had been killed. There is cause to believe that news of Smith's death may have precipitated the decision to point to the video. A Press Release (EXHIBIT F) bearing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name was released some time prior to 10:42pm EST that night. This is known because an AP article (EXHIBIT G) published at that time made reference to Clinton's statement as well as to Smith's death:

EXHIBIT F

In the days after September 11th, President Mursi seemed to adopt the narrative of the Obama administration relative to the video being responsible for causing them. He did so, ironically enough, at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York City on September 25th (EXHIBIT H).



EXHIBITS I and J are two video excerpts from President Obama's speech at the United Nations on September 25th, the same day that Mursi spoke at the CGI. During the speech, Obama echoes what Rice said about his defense of Mursi. Yet, Obama defended him publicly two weeks later, even after intelligence about Mursi's role had been readily available:



Obama again identifies the video as being responsible for the attack:

Ever since assuming the office of President on June 30, 2012, Mursi has been extremely clear about his strong desire to have the "Blind Sheikh" released. The Washington Post reported that Mursi "assumed office with a pledge to press the United States for Abdel Rahman's release" and that al-Qaeda's number one - Ayman al-Zawahiri - echoed the sentiment (EXHIBIT K).

Fox News reported on July 3, 2012, that Mursi "proclaimed to hundreds of thousands of supporters in Tahir Square... that he will gain the release of Rahman" (EXHIBIT L).

In an interview between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Mursi from January 7th of this year, Mursi doubled down on his support for the release of Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh") while making an appeal for sympathy for the mass murderer (EXHIBIT M):

While admitting his desire for the release of the "Blind Sheikh", Mursi said that if release is not possible, increased visitation and freedom should be granted to Rahman. A letter attributed to Rahman appeared in an al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine (EXHIBIT N). In an article published by The Hill, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) pointed to this letter in which the convicted terrorist is credited with ordering a bombing in western Egypt in 1997 that killed dozens of people. This demonstrated that the "Blind Sheikh" still has deadly tentacles.

Four-star Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) who on November 14, 2012, appeared on Fox Business Network with Lou Dobbs (EXHIBIT O). During that interview, Lyons said he believed the only reason that made any sense relative to Ambassador Stevens being in Benghazi on 9/11 was a kidnapping operation in which Stevens could be traded for the "Blind Sheikh":

Consider the itinerary for Ambassador Stevens, who arrived in Benghazi on 9/10/12 and was scheduled to depart on 9/14/12 (EXHIBIT P). That the State Department's top official in Libya would be sent to Benghazi one day before the anniversary of 9/11 is indeed vexing but that he would be sent to a location that was woefully unprotected and had been attacked with an I.E.D. that blew a large hole in the perimeter wall is beyond troubling. There had been several terrorist attacks on western installations as well prior to September 11th as chronicled in a letter (EXHIBIT Q) from House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa to President Barack Obama.

Amazingly, on September 28, 2012, after evidence implicating Mursi in the attacks in Benghazi had become available, the Obama administration announced that it would be providing Mursi's government with $450 Million, despite protestations from Congress. A New York Times article (EXHIBIT R) outlined the details of the aid package:

The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.

An act of war, which probable cause suggests, Mursi was involved in perpetrating against the United States in Benghazi, is not usually met with a multi-million dollar aid package.

However, if there were a deal between Obama administration officials and Mursi administration officials, to stage a kidnapping operation in which Stevens was captured and subsequently exchanged for the "Blind Sheikh", which side would stand to lose more if the truth were to come out?

While still president-elect, Mursi attempted to satiate his base by pledging to have the "Blind Sheikh" freed; it was practically part of his platform. If there had been a deal that were made public, Mursi's stock would most assuredly rise among his base. Conversely, if such a truth were to be made known, Obama would be finished.

This would grant Mursi significant leverage. Again, we take the opportunity to underscore that the Obama administration had to have known about the high probability of Mursi's involvement in the attacks as it was cutting a check for $450 Million on September 28th, barely more than two weeks later.

Fast forward a couple of months later when the Obama administration sent four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt. This was done, in part, to honor a foreign aid package that had been drafted in 2010, when Hosni Mubarak was still president. This deal required the U.S. to send more than a dozen F-16's and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt over the course of 2013. As a Fox News article (EXHIBIT S) points out, critics in Congress expressed opposition to honoring the agreement because Mursi was in power, though these objections did not include evidence implicating Mursi in the Benghazi attacks.

In March of 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Egypt would be receiving another $250 Million in aid from the Obama administration. This rankled more members of Congress, particularly Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who had served as the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She was quoted in another Fox News article (EXHIBIT T) as saying:

"With sequestration forcing our nation to face billions of dollars in cuts across the government, it is unfathomable that the administration would send funds unconditionally to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government."

We must emphasize that Ros-Lehtinen's objections, though forceful, were not made on the basis of strong evidence implicating Mursi's involvement in the Benghazi attacks.

Now, as the situation in Egypt has become increasingly more violent and tenuous, the Obama administration is sending 400 troops from the site of the 2009 Jihad attack at Fort Hood, TX that left 14 dead and 32 wounded, to Egypt on a "peacekeeping mission" according to a Fort Hood press release (EXHIBIT U).

The behavior of the Obama administration relative to its assistance to Mursi warrants further investigation into whether the Obama administration may be the victim of blackmail.

This leads to our next witness, former C.I.A. Director David Petraeus (EXHIBIT V). Evidence suggests that Petraeus may have punished by the Obama administration when he did not sign on to the talking points that would ultimately be used by Ambassador Rice on September 16th. As references to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were being scrubbed from the talking points, Petraeus sent an email at 2:27 PM one day earlier in which he wrote, "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then..." (EXHIBIT W):

EXHIBIT W

On November 7, 2012, one day after Barack Obama's re-election, Petraeus' boss - James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence - advises the White House that Petraeus may resign over an extra-marital affair being made public. It is subsequently learned that the FBI had known about the affair for months and that Attorney General Eric Holder had known about it for weeks. During an appearance on the Fox News Channel on November 13th, Washington Post writer Charles Krauthammer seemed convinced that Petraeus had been punished for not endorsing the talking points about Benghazi (EXHIBIT X):



Whereas it is demonstrable that the Obama administration was likely punitive in its treatment of David Petraeus when the C.I.A. Director didn't sign off on the talking points, it is therefore alleged, based on factual and circumstantial evidence that the Obama administration may also be a victim of blackmail from the nation-state of Egypt and its Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Mursi.

Pursuant to the premise that acts of terror must be treated as criminal acts, it is our view that this evidence is more than sufficient to convene a grand jury to indict Mursi and to draw up articles of impeachment for Obama administration officials.

Since the Clinton administration, a common refrain that has been heard - especially from the political left - is that terrorists must be treated as criminals and terrorist attacks should be treated as prosecutable crimes. A perfect example can be found in the case of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh") who was successfully prosecuted and given a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

If the Benghazi attacks were prosecutable crimes, we suggest that a grand jury is long overdue.

In politics, that's equivalent to articles of impeachment.

Did Lindsey Graham accuse Obama of Manslaughter?

It's now a matter of record that Barack Obama made no phone calls during the many hours that transpired during the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks. What's also now a matter of record is the fact that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - whether he realizes it or not - seems to have made the case for Obama's impeachment and removal from office.

Via the Washington Times:

President Obama didn't make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

"During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama's defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.

Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.

The headline of the aforementioned story honed in on the admission by the White House that Obama made no phone calls during the attacks but unless I'm missing something, a U.S. Senator just accused the president of having the blood of two former Navy SEALs on his hands by not doing his job. In layman's parlance, that sounds like manslaughter, which has two legal definitions, both of which could apply to Obama.

Check out what the legal dictionary has to say about that offense:

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious Homicide.

An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter.

Try as one might, it's hard to argue - based on the White House admission and Graham's assertion - that Obama didn't have a duty to at least make an attempt to repel the attacks sometime during the seven hour siege involving the consulate and CIA Annex. If Graham is right, Obama failing to execute his duty led to the deaths of Americans. That would be criminally negligent manslaughter.

How about the more egregious form of involuntary manslaughter? As you consider the application of unlawful act manslaughter, consider the claims made in a book by Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy. Among their charges is that the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi were in response to weapons raids ordered by John Brennan directly from Obama's White House. Webb and Murphy also claim that then CIA Director David Petraeus and Ambassador Christopher Stevens were kept in the dark about it.

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an Assault and Battery could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are made illegal by legislation—for example, reckless driving—are malum prohibitum. In states that use this distinction, an act must be malum in se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the person who committed it could have foreseen that death would be a direct result of the act.

If Brennan was secretly ordering raids without the knowledge of the CIA Director and Petraeus should have been aware of those raids, that would constitute an unlawful act. If those unlawful acts were the cause of the attacks on the consulate and annex (CIA), it would seem that Brennan (acting as an arm of Obama) may be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

Such things would mean that Brennan's nomination by Obama as CIA Director sets a new high water mark for audacity.

Video: President Perjury accuses Romney of lying

While campaigning in Philadelphia, Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying, accused Mitt Romney of being a... liar. The cherry on top?

Bubba wagged his finger as he made the charge.

Priceless.

Via Daily Caller:

Fast and Furious smoking gun may be one Email

It looks like an email from then Acting Director at the ATF - Kenneth Melson - to high ranking Department of Justice officials in March of 2011 may just blow the lid off the Fast and Furious investigation once and for all. That also may be why Obama went as far as asserting Executive Privilege to prevent it from being released.

Via Matthew Boyle at the Daily Caller:

Ken Melson, now the former acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, purportedly sent that email to several DOJ leaders in March 2011. According to Grassley, Melson wrote that he had reviewed the wiretap applications — the same documents Cummings and Holder claim do not show senior DOJ officials knew of or approved gunwalking tactics in Fast and Furious.

“ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson described reading those same wiretap affidavits in March of last year,” Grassley told Holder during the Senate hearing. “He said he was alarmed that the information in the affidavits contradicted the public denial to Congress.”

It appears Republican congressional investigators first learned of the Melson email’s existence on July 4, 2011, when Melson chose to give a lengthy deposition on Fast and Furious without DOJ and ATF lawyers present. Grassley told Holder during the Senate hearing that congressional investigators first requested that the DOJ provide Congress with that email during July 2011, shortly after Melson made his then-secret trip across town to Capitol Hill.

Possible scenario: The February 4, 2011 letter from the Justice Department to Grassley said any claims that the ATF was engaged in gun-walking were "false". In March of 2011, Melson sees the now infamous wiretap applications. Upon doing so, it becomes apparent to him that DOJ Officials (Lanny Breuer / Jason Weinstein we now know at minimum) were well aware of gun-walking; Melson then sends an email expressing this concern - as well as concern over the fallacious letter sent to Grassley - to high ranking DOJ officials.

As the days and weeks go by, Melson sees that the Justice Department is not going to correct the record relative to the lie in the February 4th letter. He gets nervous and decides to meet with Oversight Committee investigators on July 4th of last year instead of on the date of his scheduled testimony on July 13th. He also brings his own counsel instead of DOJ or ATF counsel during that meeting.

Here is a report from July 6th of last year, via Hot Air:

...it says something that Melson chose to meet secretly with Issa and Grassley and to be represented by his own personal counsel rather than DOJ and ATF counsel, who, obviously, would have had departmental interests (and the protection of higher officials, perhaps?) more in mind than what was best for Melson.

On July 5, 2011 Charles Grassley sent a letter to Eric Holder about the testimony given by Melson one day earlier. In light of this new focus on Melson's e-mail to DOJ officials, this excerpt seems to take on added significance:

"By his (Melson's) account, he was sick to his stomach when he obtained those documents and learned the full story. Mr. Melson said that he told the office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) at the end of March that the Department needed to reexamine how it was responding to requests for information from Congress.

The Deputy Attorney General is Holder's right hand man. In this case, that's James Cole. Did Melson notify Cole in March of last year that DOJ needed to correct the February 4th letter? If so, DOJ ignored it month after month until it retracted the letter in December of 2011. That also calls into question every bit of testimony given to the House Oversight Committee as well as House and Senate Judiciary Committees by all DOJ and DHS officials between February 4, 2011.

Let's revisit this clip from a May 3, 2011 House Judiciary Committee hearing, not for what it's become most known for - Holder saying that the first he had heard about Fast and Furious was a "few weeks" earlier - but for his response to a question from Issa about whether James Cole authorized the program. Holder says he doesn't think Cole authorized the program because it started before Cole had assumed the position of DAG. This is correct as Cole was sworn in on December 29, 2010, fifteen days after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. When asked if Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer authorized the program, Holder was evasive.

Pay attention starting at the 1:00 mark:



What makes this testimony interesting is that if Melson's letter is released (currently being withheld under Executive Privilege asserted by Obama last week), it could show that Cole knew the February 4th letter was false at the time Holder was painting Cole as someone having virtually nothing to do with the operation.

Earlier today, Mike Vanderboegh, at the reliable Sipsey Street Irregulars website, claims to have heard from sources who claim that:

Boehner is set to deal away the contempt vote in the full House for less than the minimum discovery that Darrell Issa has set.

Regular visitors to this blog know I'm not a Boehner fan but in light of these revelations that one lone email from Kenneth Melson could blow a hole in the Fast and Furious stonewall, the Committee might not need everything it's subpoenaed.

The best part, as Boyle points out at DC? Holder told Grassley at the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 12 (earlier this month) that the Melson email did not qualify for Executive Privilege.

If you're in the mood (and have time) for some very real comparisons from 40 years ago...

Democrats in 1999: It's just Sex; Democrats in 2012: It's just Dead People

In 1999, not one House Democrat voted to impeach Bill Clinton; not one Senate Democrat voted to convict him. None of them, however, could deny that Clinton committed the felony of lying under oath to a grand jury. They had to create a new argument. What did they do? They shifted the argument away from perjury and over to what the lie was about - sex.

The narrative took hold among Democratic voters and a liberal media. Suddenly, holding a president accountable for lying under oath was something to be derided if the lie was about what could be portrayed as minor. Lawlessness was acceptable if you were a Democrat and if the substance of your crime could be diminished. Democrats couldn't deny Clinton committed a felony so they decided to impugn the motives of those who prosecuted it. The problem with the liberal logic applied to Clinton's situation is that there are not degrees of perjury. When you're under oath, it doesn't matter if you lie about sex or murder; the lie itself is the offense and it is a felony.

Speaking of murder, the Democrats find themselves in another battle over Democratic leaders - in this case, Attorney General Eric Holder and his underlings - committing perjury about an operation in which hundreds of Mexican nationals and one Border Patrol agent (Brian Terry) were murdered. Holder perjured himself on May 3, 2011 when he told the House Judiciary Committee that he had only learned about Fast and Furious a 'few weeks' earlier; his Department lied in a February 4, 2011 letter to Congress and had to retract it; and just this week, Holder had to retract a statement he made to the Senate Judiciary last week.

These lies demand accountability.

If Bill Clinton was let off the hook for perjury because of the substance (sex) at the heart of the charge, why isn't Eric Holder being held accountable for perjury by the Democrats when the substance of his perjury involves murder? Are we to excuse Holder because his lies are just about an operation that led to hundreds of dead people?

Such a notion should send chills down your spine because it would make such Democrats nothing short of wicked.

It would seem that the technique used by the Democrats with Clinton would be dangerous territory today but that's only if the Republicans are willing to fight tooth and nail without worrying about political considerations. Lying about a murderous program cannot be as easily diminished as can lying about sex, can it? Nonetheless, Democrats appear to be lining up in much the same way that they did with Clinton. In the House Oversight Committee, the vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress passed but, like with Clinton's impeachment, not one Democrat voted for it, despite having in their possession the demonstrably false February 4th letter signed by then Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.

The contempt hearing only tangentially involved perjury; it was about the Justice Department handing over documents related to that demonstrably false letter. What led to its crafting and what led to its retraction? Democrats don't want you to know what's in them. The reason is simple. They have a good idea about what they reveal - a coverup and blood on the hands of high ranking Obama administration officials.

Those documents are also quite likely to reveal multiple instances of perjury from Holder, as well as other officials who have testified in front of Congressional Committees about Fast and Furious.

The inability of the Democrats to hold the Attorney General accountable for lying to Congress about a murderous operation indicates that the reasons given for not voting to impeach and convict Clinton are rendered invalid, using liberal logic. If lying under oath is ok as long as what you lie about is trivial, aren't they necessarily saying that what Holder is lying about is trivial by not holding him in contempt?

That would make lying about murder... trivial.

Washington Times Writer Implies Obama a Domestic Enemy

Actually, Robert Knight's piece in the Washington Times calls Obama a 'Trojan Horse' president without mentioning the latter's name.

I was thinking about writing a novel about what might happen if a man who hates America and wants to bring it down is somehow elected president. What would he do?

I sketched out a few plot elements, and you can decide whether this will fly.

First, the Trojan Horse president would initiate unprecedented spending, driving the debt up by more than $4 trillion just in the first three years. Much of the money would go into the pockets of political supporters and people who donate heavily to his campaigns.

He would ram through an unreadable law allowing the federal government to seize the health care system, which would transform citizens into beholden subjects.

He would cut out private lenders and federalize student loans.

He would go on a world apology tour, letting America's friends and foes know that he is doing whatever he can to make sure America becomes a third-rate power and is brought to heel under a growing world government headed by the United Nations. While on the tour, he would praise Islam and denigrate America's Christian heritage.

Read it all because there is much more.

Under this 'fictional' scenario Knight lays out, the president to which he is referring warrants impeachment, a Senate trial, and removal from office. The part Knight doesn't get to in his novel idea, involves a hyper-partisan Congress that has essentially neutered itself and hasn't the political will to do the right thing thanks, in large part, to a president who possesses the nefarious ability to exacerbate division.

By referring to a president of the United States, whether real or fictional, as a 'Trojan Horse,' Knight is essentially identifying such a president as a 'Domestic enemy.' Via the Tenth Amendment Center, here is the oath of office every member of Congress must take upon being sworn in:

Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter: So help you God?

The response is two words: 'I do.'

If this hypothetical president were to succeed in destroying America, Congress would be to blame for allowing him to do so; it is the body that is responsible for dealing with any such reality. That leads me to the response then Republican whip, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) gave to a questioner in the audience at the Heritage Foundation on May 4, 2010.

Cantor was asked what it would take for Obama to be defined as a 'domestic enemy.' His answer carries with it a very, very serious indictment of the legislative branch of government to which he belongs, if that answer was wrong.

Video: Does Michele Bachmann Agree with Impeaching Obama?

It will be very interesting to see what this does to Michele Bachmann's poll numbers because if it helps her, it ups the ante for the other candidates. While meeting with voters in Iowa after a stump speech, a man she was talking with brought up the issue of impeaching Obama. Bachmann said that she agreed. Her campaign team is apparently already trying to back away from her comments. This may not be the best course of action for a few reasons.

First, she said it. She should stand by it. If members of the Tea Party who agree with the sentiment see her back away, they may become a bit disenfranchised with her as a candidate. She needs the opposite right now.

Second, with her sagging poll numbers, she needs to take a few more rhetorical chances. Perry did that early on and it helped him greatly.

Third, whether team Bachmann likes it or not, there is a significant contingent within the voting bloc whose support she seeks, that wants Obama impeached. If she goes on record as rejecting those concerns after appearing to have expressed support for them, it could lose her votes, instead of keeping her in the game.

Conversely, if she is going to stand by the comments - which she should - she needs to put forth solid, credible reasons why Obama should be impeached. If she were able to do that, she would probably take some of Cain's support away.

VIa MediaIte:

Video: White House Spokesman Jay Carney (Barker) Indicates Obama will Invoke Fourteenth Amendment

Let the impeachment talk begin. White House press secretary Jay Carney has now officially tipped the administration's hand as to what the Obama strategy will be if the debt ceiling isn't raised; this short clip seems to indicate that Obama will raise the debt ceiling by invoking the Fourteenth amendment. If that happens, be prepared to see the Tea Party freshmen in the House, those who would ultimately be responsible for refusing to raise the debt ceiling, raise Cain.

The relevant portion of the fourteenth amendment is section 4, which states:

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The argument against Obama here is that this portion of the Constitution speaks to incurred debt, not future debt. Nonetheless, Tea Party freshmen like Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) are already on record as saying such a move would be impeachable.

First up, here is Carney saying, 'we have to take action to ensure we do not default.'



Here is none other than Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) arguing in support of Obama invoking the fourteenth:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

He's not the only one. Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist - VT) says Obama should do that as well:



Here is Rep. Scott at a recent town hall:



h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: Obama Says he's 'Tempted' to Go Around Congress

While speaking in front of the very racist 'La Raza,' Obama said it was 'very tempting' to consider going around Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Though he doesn't say it here, he is referring to an interpretation of the fourteenth amendment that is so controversial that the talk of Impeachment will commence immediately after he were to pull such a stunt. Though none other than Bill Clinton has said he wouldn't hesitate to invoke Section 4 of the Amendment, such talk is cheap when you're no longer in office. If Obama goes that route, it'd be tantamount to exercising the nuclear option on the Legislative branch.

Here is the relevant section:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obliga[p.1928]tion incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

At first glance, that may seem to give the President the right to raise the debt ceiling but the line of distinction is likely going to come down to whether the president has the right to pay debt already incurred vs. the right to authorize future debt. That distinction is quite important. While speaking in front of La Raza, Obama flashed his typical arrogance, hinting that he might just invoke the Fourteenth amendment.



h/t Weasel Zippers

Rep. Steve King: Default = Impeachment

When Obama told CBS that senior citizens might not receive their social security checks if the debt ceiling isn't raised, he was, either lying or letting Americans know that he would prioritize in such a way that he would personally guarantee that those senior citizens would NOT receive their checks. In short, there is enough money coming in to cover social security, military paychecks, and interest on the debt. It is Obama who would decide not to pay seniors. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) says that Obama should face impeachment if he prioritizes incorrectly.

Via POLITICO:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said Monday that President Barack Obama “would be impeached” if the nation falls into default.

“STOP talking about default,” he wrote on Twitter. “The 1st dime of each $1 of revenue services debt. Obama would be impeached if he blocked debt payments. C C & B!”

King is among the House Republicans who voted for the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan that would introduce a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. The Senate last week dismissed the House bill.

As Politico points out, Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) also brought up the 'I' word recently over something very similar.

Video: Congressman Tim Scott Threatens Impeachment Push

While House Speaker John Boehner cries and plays golf with President Obama, freshman Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) threatens to push for impeachment if the president attempts to go around Congress to get what he wants relative to the debt limit. Here is Scott at a recent town hall at which he is asked about Congress having its power usurped by the Executive Branch. It's interesting that people are looking at the Fourteenth Amendment (section 4) in making this case. If raising the debt ceiling is being done to suppress insurrection or rebellion against the U.S., the increased debt is to be considered 'null and void.'

Via LiveLeak:



h/t Hapblog

Video: Rep. Tom Rooney (FL) says Congress should De-Fund Obama's War in Libya

Nicholas Ballasy of CNS News interviewed Republican congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL) about his position on Obama's war in Libya. As the president continues to thumb his nose at Congress and the War Powers Act, each day that passes puts Obama closer to impeachment, frankly. Again, the War Powers Act requires any president to get congressional approval for any military action after 60 days. We're about one week away from it being 90 days and Obama continues to ignore the law. Here, Rooney says Congress needs to de-fund the war in Libya if Obama continues down this road.

Via CNS News:



h/t Impeach Obama

Video: Joe Biden Calls for Impeaching the President

The Vice President makes a very impassioned case for impeachment here. When the president has no constitutional authority to take the United States into war and he does so anyway, Joe Biden said, it is grounds for impeachment that he would push for. Here, Biden appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and was asked if he would call for impeaching the president if the latter attacked a country without congressional approval. Biden answered resoundingly in the affirmative.

This interview took place before Obama ordered attacks on Libya - way before. The exchange took place back when Biden was a Senator in 2007; he was talking about what he would do if George W. Bush attacked Iran without congressional approval. Bush never did attack Iran but Obama attacked Libya.

Fast forward to the :50 mark.



h/t Hapblog

Video: Is this a Case for Impeachment?

Obama's attacks on Libya are quite arguably unconstitutional; even the anti-war Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore have expressed outrage at the move. It is true that Obama did not get Constitutional approval for the attacks while George W. Bush did before going into Iraq. It's also true that Ronald Reagan attacked Libya without Constitutional approval but the argument there is that Reagan was acting in self-defense after Gadhafi's attacks on Americans.

There may or may not be a case for impeachment there; it would require substantial political will in the House of Representatives to pull it off anyway. What if the reasons to impeach the president went beyond the Constitutionality of his attacks on Libya? What if those reasons should be used to confront something far more dangerous? What if this administration is intentionally installing Islamic tyrants all over the world with an endgame that consists of destroying America?



h/t to Special Guests

AUDIO: ATTORNEY FOR LT. COL CALLING FOR OBAMA TO PROVE ELIGIBILITY

Writing about this subject is limited fare for me but there are multiple angles to the content of this interview that transcend Obama's long form Birth Certificate. For starters, the attorney representing Lt. Col Terry Lakin is highly respected and represented the four Navy Seals last year who were acquitted of beating up a terrorist responsible for the for the burning alive of four American contractors in Fallujah who were then hung from a bridge in Fallujah in 2004.

Neal Puckett has represented soldiers on more than one occasion that were wrongfully targeted for how they conducted themselves in combat; he's got plenty of street cred and is on the right side far more often than not.

Another theme that develops here is the conduct of senior officers who don't seem to be willing to - as Col. Allen West says - "go through hell with a gasoline can" for his men.

Lastly, the "Birthers" have two indisputable facts on their side. First, Obama has not presented his long-form Birth Certificate or passport. Second, he's spent millions of dollars preventing it from being released. Those are two very important facts that Lt. Col Lakin does have on his side but it looks like Puckett has conceded Lakin will take the fall; he's just trying to soften it.

It gets good at the end when the interviewer (name unknown), who seems to be somewhat connected to the power structure at the Pentagon calls senior military brass "cowards."

Part 1



Part 2



h/t Impeach Obama

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE KEY TO IMPEACHMENT

Recently, while reviewing the Declaration of Independence, I noticed that Barack Obama's words and deeds since being inaugurated don't just run counter to the founding document's sentiment; he seems to have been channeling King George with his policies. Obama has been saying and doing things right out of the former British king's playbook. Why would he do that when he seems to despise Great Britain?

I also explored these similarities in the second half of my December 5th show.

Floyd Reports has picked up my recent column, which deals with this very subject:

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE KEY TO IMPEACHMENT
Ben Barrack

When it comes to the impeachment and subsequent removal from office of a sitting president, the ‘how’ is found in the Constitution; much of the ‘why’ is found in the Declaration of Independence. The former was an extension of the latter.

As a Constitutional law professor, Barack Obama is extremely familiar with our founding documents but – quite ironically in light of his nearly palpable contempt for Great Britain – he seems to be channeling the individual most responsible for the Declaration’s authorship – King George.

For example:

He (King George) has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

Two states have passed laws recently that have, in effect, been “suspended.” In the case of Arizona’s SB 1070, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked the most key parts of the law one day prior to its scheduled implementation. This never would have been done had Obama’s Department of Justice not filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona. As for the neglecting-to-attend-to-them part, the law has virtually faded from public view since the ruling.

The other state to have an activist judge rule in favor of the Obama administration – inferred based on the president’s ideology and past statements – is Oklahoma. After 70 percent of that state’s voters decided they wanted to preemptively eliminate the possibility of Shari’a law factoring in to any court rulings there, an activist judge “suspended” the results of the ballot measure.

How courts rule on the multiple lawsuits already filed in different states challenging the legal standing of Obamacare will further demonstrate the degree to which this administration’s luck may not be luck at all.

He (King George) has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

Speaking of Obamacare, isn’t this precisely what happened? The twisting of arms behind closed doors and under the cover of darkness is what allowed it to pass. The supposed Democratic champion for the pro-life movement, Bart Stupak was the last one to cave; he did so for a worthless Executive Order, which ultimately put the bill on Obama’s desk. Earlier, Nebraska senator Ben Nelson had his arm twisted until he took a bribe.

During his 2008 campaign, Obama demonstrated his knowledge of our founding documents by running on a platform of transparency, telling voters that C-SPAN would be part of all negotiations, thereby appealing to our country’s ideals; the exact opposite happened.

He (King George) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

In the wake of Obamacare becoming law, the IRS is expected to add over 16,000 new agents to enforce the newly signed law which, as mentioned previously, is being challenged in court by more states than not.

Lest we also not forget the Travel Safety Administration (TSA), which has been harassing our people by feeling their “junk.” Unlike some other bureaucracies, the president cannot hide behind this one; the policy in place today can end today if the president so chooses. The TSA is under the supervision of the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who reports directly to Obama.

As for new offices, this administration, more than any other, has appointed ‘Czars’ that are accountable to no one but the president and who were able to circumvent the senate confirmation process entirely. There is even a health care czar in Donald Berwick who has openly stated that a good health care system is “redistributional,” which takes us back to those judges, who coincidentally seem to be ruling in favor of Obama.

He (King George) has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

To this day, Obama has yet to explain what he meant when he said on the 2008 campaign trail, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we have set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Though we haven’t yet seen this national force manifest itself in the form of an identifiable body, an increasingly intrusive TSA and a beefed up IRS coupled with SEIU thugs certainly seem to exist if only in the spirit of such a notion. Another indicator of this could be the words of former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones; at Washington University recently, he outlined a “potential nightmare scenario.”

Said Jones: “As a nation….(we’re) getting more and more ethnically diverse….but less and less economically prosperous…If you know anything about history, that’s not a recipe for common ground. That’s a recipe for a battleground.”

While Jones resigned from his position in the administration in 2009, he is now a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, which has significant influence on White House policy. His message at Washington University is very key – especially if he retains any degree of influence with this White House – because it speaks very specifically to another excerpt from the Declaration.

He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

The intent of community organizing as defined by Obama’s mentor is to “rub raw the sores of discontent.” Isn’t this what Jones is doing? As a senior fellow for the organization led by the man who headed Obama’s White House transistion team – John Podesta – we have an impeachable problem if he is vocalizing White House sentiment to even the slightest degree.

Again, Obama knows these documents inside and out. The aforementioned passage identified King George as having excited “Indian savages” to fight the colonists on the King’s behalf. If Obama hates America, he almost necessarily resents that part of the Declaration.

On November 5, 2009, an Islamic jihadist named Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 14 people and injured 32 on Fort Hood’s military base in Texas. Ironically, Obama had been scheduled to speak at the Tribal Nations Conference, an event designed to show support for all of the federally recognized Indian tribes. As the details of the shooting became known, America was told Obama would speak about the massacre. In a moment of shocking insensitivity, President Obama gave a “shout out” to an American Indian named Joe “Medicine” Crow and talked about the conference for nearly three minutes before getting to what happened at Fort Hood.

On May 4, 2010, then House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-VA, spoke at the Heritage Foundation and was asked the following question about Obama by a member of the audience: “In light of all that Obama has done…What would he have to do differently to be defined as a domestic enemy?” The crowd applauded the question and groaned when Cantor forthrightly denied the insinuation.

Ok, fine. How about, “In light of all that Obama has done, Mr. Cantor, what would we have to do differently to get you to read the Declaration of Independence before you answer?”

Read it all with links.

MSNBC'S ED SCHULTZ INFATUATED WITH IMPEACHMENT TALK

MSNBC's resident liberal whack job, Ed Schultz seems fixated on the notion that Republicans are going to attempt to impeach Obama. There are two schools of thought here. One, Schultz is a loon and two, he's sounding the alarm because there's really something to it. The Republican establishment, which would include soon-to-be chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (R-CA) has actually been channeling Chris Matthews, saying it's his job to 'make the president a success.'

So where is Schultz getting all this? After blogs reported his fixation, Schultz passed the buck to House minority Whip James Clyburn. Here is the video via Breitbart:



Prior to pointing to Clyburn, Schultz drew attention to himself. Via MediaIte, Here's a montage of him expressing his concern:



Whether impeachment happens or not, it's beyond likely that the Obama White House will have to deal with a slew of subpoenas. Unlike Issa, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Judiciary committee is striking a stronger tone. WOAI in San Antonio reports on Lamar Smith (R-TX):

The San Antonio Congressman who is in line to become chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee is promising 'a number of investigations and oversight committee actions' which he vows will 'hold the administration accountable,’ 1200 WOAI news reports.

Veteran Republican Lamar Smith, a Yale graduate and social conservative who grew up in the brush country of south Texas which is now transit point for illegal immigrants and drugs, said in a news conference that a number of issues will come into the sights of his committee when he takes the chairmanship in January, from cracking down on child pornography to taking the Obama Administration to task for failing to do enough to protect the southern border.

Perhaps Sgt. Schultz knows something after all.

The Daily Caller has more on liberal paranoia over impeachment.

h/t to Western Journalism