Daily Archives: July 21, 2010

Blagojevich Trial Update: Wall Street Journal Reporter Handcuffed In Courthouse Lobby

Blagojevich trial: Wall Street Journal reporter handcuffed in courthouse lobby


Sarah Ostman

on July 21, 2010 12:53 PM

Reporting with Natasha Korecki

A Wall Street Journal reporter was handcuffed in the lobby of the courthouse just a few minutes ago.

“Interviewing an attorney,” reporter Doug Belkin said, handcuffed in the elevator with several court security officers. It’s against courthouse rules to do interviews outside a designated press area.

The security officers escorted the reporter up to lock-up.

“I told him three times to back up and he didn’t. He put his hands on me,” the security officer said.

Rod Blagojevich: “Maybe the biggest lesson I’ve learned is that I talk too much”


Sarah Ostman

on July 21, 2010 12:28 PM

After holing up in a conference room with his lawyers for over an hour, Rod Blagojevich finally spoke to the media early Tuesday afternoon. Here’s what he said:

“From the very beginning — when all of this happened and the government came into our home and took me away from our kids and then ultimately from the people of Illinois — I said from the beginning I did nothing illegal,” he said with Patti beside him.

“In the tapes that the government played, they proved, as I said all along, that I did nothing illegal. In fact, they proved that I sought the advice of my lawyers and my advisers, they proved that I was on the phone talking with them, brainstorming about ideas.

“Yes. they proved some of the ideas were stupid, but they also proved some of the ideas were good. Brainstorming and free speech is part of what the American experience is supposed to be.

And talking to your advisers as a governor and taking advice, especially from those who are lawyers, to make sure you do your duty the right way, is what I did and what those tapes prove,” he said.

“The government also proved in their case … I never took a corrupt dollar, I never took a corrupt dime, not a corrupt nickel, not a corrupt penny. And besides that, the government also proved that for the six years i was governor, Patti and i overpaid every year our federal taxes.

“I thought all along and believed all along that I was going to testify. The government told us their case was going to be something like four months. And as a result of what they said their case was going to be, we operated under the assumption that I was going to testify.

“There’s no secret that there’s a division between my lawyers, between father and son, Sam Adam Jr. and Sam Adam Sr.

“Sam Adam Jr. still, to this moment, wanted me to testify, and frankly so did I … but ultimately I relied on the judgment ultimately and the advice of Sam Adam Sr. who is the coach of our team…”

“After 39 years of experience, when he sat in my living room until 11:30 Monday night, after talking about these issues right after the government rested their case… Sam Adam Sr.’s most compelling argument, and ultimately the one that swayed me, was that the government in their case proved my innocence they proved I did nothing illegal and there was nothing further for us to add.”

“He believed it was prudent to rest the case…”

“I’ve learned a lot of lessons from this whole experience and perhaps maybe the biggest lesson I’ve learned is that I talk too much. Thank you.”


Comments Off on Blagojevich Trial Update: Wall Street Journal Reporter Handcuffed In Courthouse Lobby

Filed under Uncategorized

Blagojevich Trial Update – Day 26 – The Media and Crowds Aare Waiting Outside The Courtroom

The press pit in the lobby of the Dirksen Federal Building is packed to the gills as reporters wait for Rod Blagojevich and his team of lawyers to exit the building. We’ve been told they plan to talk.

Word is the team is now hunkered down in a conference room upstairs, possibly strategizing about what to say to the media. It’s hard to get definite word, though — court personnel has banned everyone from the courtroom area.

In the meantime, court security officers have had to bring out ropes to hold back the restless crowd of reporters and cameramen. It’s the first time that’s happened this entire trial. A mic stand is nearly toppling over with microphones.

“Still waiting,” the officers are telling us. “We’ll let you know as soon as we hear anything.” It’s been more than half an hour.

Earlier, Judge Zagel and attorneys handled some housekeeping and said court would reconvene at 1:30.

At noon, there’s still no sighting. But the crowd is holding its ground — no one wants to miss this.

Blagojevich trial: Rod Blagojevich signs autographs on courtroom break

Sarah Ostman

on July 21, 2010 10:43 AM

Reporting with Natasha Korecki and Dave McKinney

Judge James Zagel announces that closing statements will resume Monday at 9:30. He says he will give the jurors instructions on their deliberations this morning, in private, after a 10-minute break.

“I plan to instruct the jury in the jury room, rather than bring them back here, to continue their duties not to pay attention to media,” Zagel says, “and tell them we’ll resume again Monday at 9:30.”

Over the break, Rod Blagojevich signs autographs.

He’s in the courtroom with one foot propped on a bench, signing autographs on his knee.

Rod Blagojevich to Judge Zagel: It is my decision not to testify

Sarah Ostman

on July 21, 2010 10:34 AM

Reporting with Natasha Korecki and Dave McKinney

Judge James Zagel has the jury taken out of the room and then addresses Rod Blagojevich.

The judge asks him to state his name for the record. “Rod Blagojevich.”

Zagel explains to Blagojevich that it has to be his own decision not to testify.

“So now I’m going to ask you if it is your personal decision not to take the witness stand,” the judge says
“Yes, judge,” the ex-governor responds.

Zagel asks Blagojevich if he had discussed the matter with his attorneys.

“Yes, judge, fully and completely,” he says.

And you have “deliberated in your own mind” after discussing with your lawyers? the judge asks.

“It is my decision, judge, on the advice of my attorneys. I made the decision freely and voluntarily,” he says, speaking longer than necessary but sounding perfectly comfortable.

Zagel says he is satisfied and tells Blagojevich to sit down or remain standing.

“What would you recommend, judge?” the ex-governor asks.
“I would return to your seat,” the judge says without hesitation.

Rod laughs and moves through his lawyers, touching one on the shoulder. Still smiling, he sits down, unbuttons his suit coat, runs his left hand through his hair, and with his hands clasps, sits and listens.

Blagojevich trial: Government rests

Sarah Ostman

on July 21, 2010 10:27 AM

Reporting with Natasha Korecki and Dave McKinney

The government calls one rebuttal witness for Robert Blagojevich, FBI agent Dan Cain, and played a couple recordings. The defense objected to the tapes, but the judge overruled.

One is a call from Dec. 5, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. in which Robert Blagojevich tells a Friends of Blagojevich assistant he doesn’t want to talk on the phone.

“I’d rather do it on the cell, where no one can hear us,” she says.

“Oh, I don’t know about that,” Robert answers.

The government has rested its case.


Sarah Ostman

on July 21, 2010 10:09 AM

Reporting with Natasha Korecki and Dave McKinney

As the courtroom waits for the jury to be seated, Rod is sitting at the defense table, occasionally laughing and once waving to a courtroom artist. He’s fiddling with a pen, while talking to attorney Shelly Sorosky.

Rod is in a navy suit, Patti is wearing a summer dress and has a pair of dark circles under her eyes. She’s sitting next to her sister, Deb Mell.

The judge and jury have entered.

Sorosky announces that the defense rests, making it official that Rod Blagojevich will not testify.

After much anticipation, the scene was not a dramatic one. Judge James Zagel asked if Robert Blagojevich had any other evidence to offer. He didn’t.

In those seconds, Rod Blagojevich sat at the defense table, looking down. He neatly organized pens in front of his notebook.

Zagel then gestured to Sorosky, who stood up and announced it: “At this time, the defendant Rod Blagojevich would rest.”

The jurors all looked at the defendant’s table.

One jurors’ eyes widened hearing the news. Others, for the most part, remained without expression.

Blagojevich trial: On “decision day,” Rod Blagojevich arrives at the courthouse

Sarah Ostman

on July 21, 2010 9:36 AM

Reporting with Natasha Korecki and Dave McKinney

Rod Blagojevich arrived at a media-frenzied courthouse around 9:30 this morning. But on this “decision day,” the usually outspoken ex-governor walked right past crowds of reporters and cameras.

Outside the courthouse, he shook hands with a cabbie, waved at onlookers and posed for a picture — but said nothing. When asked specifically whether he intended to testify, he did not respond.

Upstairs, the hallway outside the 25th floor courtroom is packed with onlookers. The ex-governor waved and said only, “Welcome to the trial.”

His lawyer, Sam Adam Jr., was asked if his client would testify, but only smiled and shrugged.

Sources say Blagojevich has not changed his mind — he is not expected to take the stand.

At 9:40, the media is still cordoned off from entering the courtroom — but the tension is already palpable. One reporter is sweating profusely, wiping sweat with a napkin. Another spoke of feeling unnerved.

A security officer just announced that whoever doesn’t have a ticket should go to the overflow room on the 14th floor now, because there will be no room.

The overflow room is crowded, too. The usually-empty benches for the public are filled with people, and new media faces are vying for precious seats at the tables. Even the jury box is full of spectators.

Judge James Zagel has been holding hearings for other cases this morning, but wrapped up that other business around 9:45. The Blagojevich trial is next up, in just a few minutes.

Finally, just before 10:00 — a half-hour later than usual — spectators have been let into the courtroom. A court officer announces to the chatty room that the judge will “not tolerate” people jumping up and rushing out once the action starts, and urges people to go to the overflow room now — clearly a warning to the media.

Blagojevich trial: Day 26 — Decision Day

Natasha Korecki

on July 21, 2010 4:00 AM |

After a night of wrangling, a haggard-looking defense team for Rod Blagojevich was ready to rest its

case without calling a witness Tuesday — but lawyers were told by the judge to sleep on the decision.

We’ll be back today, at 9:30 a.m. with a final public decision by Rod Blagojevich.

Rod Blagojevich attorneys Sam Adam Sr. and Sam Adam Jr. said publicly they were divided on whether to put the former governor on the stand. But Attorney Sheldon Sorosky later told me: “There’s absolutely no dissension among the lawyers.”

Ultimately, sources tell the Sun-Times that on Monday night, the attorneys and the former governor agreed that Blagojevich couldn’t withstand what promised to be a stinging cross examination. They were also concerned because during preparation he was reluctant to admit he made mistakes and couldn’t keep his answers brief.

Also factoring into the calculation: there was some concern that Tony Rezko might be called as a rebuttal witness by the prosecution if Blagojevich took the stand.

Sorosky conceded that without Blagojevich on the stand it closed the door to calling any rebuttal witness — Rezko or otherwise.

The challenge now left for the defense: Sam Adam Jr. told jurors in his opening statement they would hear from Rod Blagojevich. Judge James Zagel will tell jurors they aren’t allowed to hold the decision not to testify against a defendant.

Up today:

Blagojevich is expected to announce he won’t testify. If that happens, U.S. District Judge James Zagel, outside of the jury’s presence, will explain to him his rights and ask him if he’s sure of his decision and that he is making that decision.

Comments Off on Blagojevich Trial Update – Day 26 – The Media and Crowds Aare Waiting Outside The Courtroom

Filed under Uncategorized

Is Obama Just Incompetent Or Is He Deliberately Making Things Worse?

Everyone is asking the same question, “Is Obama deliberately destroying the country? Since Obama has taken office there has been a steady erosion of all that America is.  He and his band of followers in Washington are doing everything they can to erode this country of its values and traditions.  The corrupt politicians that are now in office have brought their pathetic ways of getting things done straight from the corruption of Chicago and it is showcasing their swampy, thug political mentality.  The Obama administration is a complete rejection of everything that has made America the greatest country in the world.

This following article is on Canada Free Press:

Obama Must be Impeached: He’s Either Incompetent, or Purposely Failing

By Kelly O’Connell  Sunday, July 18, 2010

Is there a single American who secretly thinks Obama’s up to the task of the presidency? Or, does anyone believe Barack does not take bad situations and worsen them to magnify his power? These are rhetorical questions, of course. The only way Barack is an acceptable president is if you’re an opponent of America’s greatest achievements.

Therefore, if you support Obama it means you want to revolutionize the US. But no democratic country knowingly elects leaders to debase their country, give away power, bankrupt the treasury, incorporate socialism, dissolve constitutional rights, cripple capitalism, and menace every citizen with reckless policies. That would be ridiculous and anti-American. Barack has done all these things. Therefore, he must be impeached.

Obama’s habit of casually blaming all problems on the sins of his predecessor recalls a quote by Joseph Conrad, “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.” Similarly, Barack has revealed enough willful stupidity, ignorance, and crafty sabotage to explain every lingering crisis in America; he no longer need invoke the Devil Bush.

Probably most persons presently believe the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can’t be impeached for anything he has done. Those persons would be wrong. According to a recent book, “The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,” by Michael J. Gerhardt, impeachment is ultimately a political question which cannot be framed off a simple criminal analysis. This essay offers a brief overview of the federal impeachment process and proposes an analysis of Obama’s actions which place them into the impeachable category.

I. General Impeachment Process

Impeachment, according to the ABA website: “Is a process, authorized by the Constitution, to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office. “

The standard route that an impeachment follows is well-established. Here is a brief explanation from the Legal Information Institute:

The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, “all civil officers,” includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

  1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
  2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
  3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
  4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, “impeached”—that is subject to trial in the Senate.
  5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
  6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
  7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

II. Reasons for Impeachment

A. Political Crimes

Gerhardt’s book “The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,” is an excellent source to begin analyzing the proper foundation of impeachment. Gerhardt’s work arguably centers on chapter 9, titled “The Scope Of Impeachable Offenses.” He sums up the issue: “The major disagreement is not over whether impeachable offenses should be strictly limited to indictable crimes, but rather over the range of non-indictable offenses on which an impeachment may be based.” In other words, outside of a clear instance of serious crime, the question of whether an official can be impeached rests upon one question. This is—What kinds of acts, which would not normally lead to an arrest, could still form a basis for an impeachment?

Gerhardt’s study focuses upon the fact that impeachment is inevitably a “political” undertaking, as understood by how the old British system viewed the term “political.” Raoul Berger, in his Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems, studied instances of impeachment procedure occurring before the US Constitution was written. He found the British viewed the process as involving “high crimes and misdemeanors as a category of political crimes against the state.” Further, Berger isolated the use of “political,” in this sense, and “against the state” as being identical in meaning. In essence, when the Brits called an action “politically suspect,” it was meant as an injury to the state, that is—an attack against England.

William Blackstone, chronicler of the British common law, differentiates “high treason” from “low treason,” the latter being disloyalty to an equal or lesser. So high treason was disloyalty to a superior person or entity. According to Arthur Bestor, this differentiation between high and low treason was a key concept to understand for a proper impeachment analysis. Bestor describes how a fair impeachment proceeding would be founded upon a profound assault to the state itself.

The American constitutional Framers understood this difference between high and low treason, according to Gerhardt, believing impeachment dealt with high treasons in the form of attacks against the state. For example, Signator George Mason felt impeachments should be limited to acts that “attempt to subvert the Constitution,” among which he felt should include “maladministration.” While James Madison felt this term was too vague, Gerhardt claims all the Founders believed impeachment was not simply a process to deal with straightforward crimes. He writes, “In short, the debates at the constitutional convention show at least that impeachable offenses were not limited to indictable offenses, but included offenses against the state.”

The ratification debates on the Constitution certainly compassed beyond mere crimes as reason for impeachment. “Great” offenses included when an executive “deviates from his duty” or that he “dare to abuse the power vested in him by the people.” Framer, Signator and First US Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote upon this topic in Federalist 65, writing:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

Founder, Signator and US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson agreed with Hamilton’s assessment, calling impeachable offenses… “political crimes and misdemeanors.” Harvard Constitutional scholar and US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Storyand impeachment authority—agreed, according to the record in “Proceedings in the Cases of the Impeachment of Charles Robinson, et al…” He wrote,

The subject (of impeachment) is full of intrinsic difficulty in a government purely elective. The jurisdiction is to be exercised over offenses which are committed by public men in violation of their public trusts and duties. Those duties are, in many cases, political; and, indeed, in other cases, to which the power of impeachment will probably be applied…the power partakes of a political character… Political injuries to be of such kinds of misdeeds…as to peculiarly injure the commonwealth by the abuse of high offices of trust.

Justice Story also stated that a particular action did not have to have a previously existing law against the impeachable offense, writing “…no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.” This was considered crucial since no exhaustive statutes could ever be drafted so well as to foresee every single future event threatening the Republic. He said, “Political offenses are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not absurd to attempt it.” According to Gerhardt, this means Story and Hamilton agreed future generations “would have to define on a case-by-case basis the political crimes comprising impeachable offenses to replace the federal common law of crimes that never developed.”

B. Non-Indictable Impeachable Offenses

The hardest category for impeachments is defining actions that are not obvious crimes, but reveal such a lack of character or such ill-will or indifference to America’s safety that they become impeachable offenses, ipso facto. Lawrence Tribe, in his “American Constitutional Law” mentions some such examples, writing “…a deliberate presidential decision to emasculate our national defenses or to conduct a private war in circumvention of the Constitution” could form the basis for a non-indictable, impeachable action against the state. Now, simple un-indictable crimes such as jaywalking, smoking in a restaurant, or failing to use a turn signal are examples of actions that would not support an impeachment.

III. Do Obama’s Crimes Rise to Impeachment?

Do any of Obama’s actions rise to the level of his being impeached? Following are Barack acts that various persons believe are illegal, treasonous, or clearly impeachable. (Forgive the omission of many other serious Obama offenses)

A. Environmental Disaster

Gulf Oil Spill: Barack could have moved much more quickly to sop up the oil in the Gulf. His actions were obviously dilatory, especially refusing foreign aid and not using, to this day, 4 months after the spill started, all of America’s 2,000 oil skimmers. How many millions of gallons of petroleum did this add to Louisiana’s and Mississippi’s and Alabama’s fragile wetlands? And Obama is “dedicated” to the environment? Please!

Barack also battled various governors when they tried to protect their states, like LA’s Bobby Jindal, a potential future political opponent. This ridiculous foot-dragging greatly exaggerated the oil pollution’s effects, presumably to strengthen Barack’s political hand against future petroleum use. In fact, one could claim Obama is the least environmentally sound US president ever. So, does this rise to an impeachable offense? See how Incompetence has turned the Gulf oil tragedy into “Obama‚Äôs Katrina.”

B. Economic Failure

  1. Socialism: Socialism is not an American ideology because it destroys capitalism, which the Founders chose as our model. But we know Obama opposes this when he said to Joe the Plumber: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it‚Äôs good for everybody.”
  2. Government Bailouts: The Constitution protects private property, especially the Contracts Clause. Obama’s people unfairly favored the unions in the Detroit auto bailout, breaking this clause. Further, Obama had no mandate to bailout Detroit in general.
  3. “Stimulus” Lies: Barack said if the Stimulus was not passed the economy would tank (some disagreed), despite not having helped draft it or even knowing what was in the bill. Stimulus Bill Too Lengthy to Read—But Not To Sign. Is a president touting a bill he doesn’t know impeachable conduct?
  4. Unparalleled Deficit Spending: Just because Keynes had a theory about deficit spending does not make this the answer to all problems. Barack seems to wantonly waste money. Why? Plus, it would appear a great deal of TARP/bailout/stimulus money has been stolen, undoubtedly given for political gifts. Is this not, at least, impeachable?
  5. Obama is demanding Cap’n-Trade, even after Global Warming has been proved a hoax. That’s theft.
  6. Reason Magazine Lists Obama’s “Five Lies About the American Economy

C. Republican Form of Government Under Attack

  1. Representative Government: The Declaration of Independence says: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Yet Obama continually passes legislation without support of a majority, like Obamacare. Is this impeachable conduct?
  2. Attempts to Throw Out Filibuster. God forbid anything in the US government not be based upon pure democracy so to make it easier for mob rule! Read about Biden’s hypocrisy!

D. Sovereignty

  1. Should America hand over sovereignty to world bodies? America cedes sovereignty at Copenhagen?
  2. Should Obama honor deals made with our allies? Canceling Polish Missiles for Russia
  3. Should Barack bow to every despot in the world? If so, why? Bowing to Foreign Leadership.
  4. Should Obama use foreign leaders as proxies to attack American state’s policies? Obama Brings Foreign Leaders to Talk Down America

E. Political Crimes

Can the White House dictate who runs for office?

  1. Did WH Sestak Cabinet offer break law? Was Sestak offered a job to not run? Is that election tampering?
  2. Did the WH break the law when CO’s Romanof was offered a job to drop out?
  3. Did Obama try to get Valerie Jarret in his old senate seat?
  4. Where did Obama’s Internet election millions come from?
  5. Isn’t appointing un-vetted, Marxist czars simple un-American? Isn’t it impeachable?

F. Bill of Rights

  1. Free Speech. Obama thugs were disrupting town hall meetings before the Obamacare vote. Also, Obama has a problem with free speech he’d like the Court to address. And Elena “Mister” Kagan, Obama’s candidate for the SCOTUS opening, thinks free speech should be curtailed.
  2. Property Right: Obama salivates on thinking of wealth redistribution!
  3. Internet Freedom: Obama plans to limit free speech on the Net and now will have a “kill switch” to turn it off during “emergencies.”
  4. Religious Freedom: Some critics don’t think Obama cares about any religious freedom but Islamic.

G. Supporting Global Democracy:

Bearing in mind American policy was always to support greater global freedom and democracy, to make the world better and safer, should Obama unilaterally change this policy? Isn’t that impeachable?

  1. Obama is an enormous critic of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East. But Barack claims Israelis don’t like him because of his Muslim name, as opposed to his dreadful policies!
  2. Barack refused to take a strong stand against the Iranian democracy crackdown. Why? Doesn’t Obama care about Iranian freedom advocates?
  3. Obama refused to stand up for Honduran constitutionalism. But why not? Isn’t he a US constitutional scholar? Barack even terminated aid to Honduras for defending their constitution!

H. Illegal Immigration

  1. Obama refuses to strongly support border security, despite grave dangers.
  2. But when individual states act to stop illegal entries, Barack attacks their laws and sues them.
  3. Barack lashes out self-righteously against the law which mirrors his own federal statutes.
  4. Obama’s dense attorney general also rages, despite admitting never having read the law.

I. Pro Islam

  1. Obama is Refusing to Call Jihadists “Muslim Terrorists.Barack believes if he is “polite” to murderous Islam they will leave us alone.
  2. Using NASA to Help Islam. This may be Barack’s all-time craziest idea: Announce the American’s space program’s real mission is to help promote Islam. Wow!
  3. Obama once practiced Islam, according to Islam expert Daniel Pipes.

J. Honesty, Religion & Political Beliefs

Barack has transparently lied about many important topics. Is being a habitual liar impeachable?

  1. Obama religious beliefs: His 20-year “minister” Rev Wright is a Marxist radical who hates Whites and Jews. Note the emergence of President Obama’s Muslim Roots.
  2. Obama’s political views: He used to be a garden variety Marxist at Occidental College! More… In an interview with Dr John C. Drew, Obama was described as a vain, stylish, gay socialist who hung out with another male student who footed his bills.
  3. Barack says he’s not a socialist, but he only makes government bigger and more expensive.

IV Bonus Section: Barack Birth Certificate

I don’t claim to know where Barack Obama was born. But the fact the guy cannot produce an original birth certificate, yet refuses to admit this obvious fact—is strange. I mean, why does he post a replacement certificate online as if it were the original? That’s an idiotic maneuver. Further, wasting millions of tax payer of dollars fighting Birther lawsuits gives one no confidence in his origins.

But the real importance of the Birther movement is to continually highlight the very alien nature of Obama, and how opposed he is to everything traditionally American. Undoubtedly, the desire to fend off strange and un-American personalities who did not grow up in the US and therefore cannot hope to identify with our history of rugged individualism and freedom-loving ways was key to the Founders not allowing foreign-born presidents. And Obama is an alien to American ideals and freedoms, regardless of where he was born.


Should Obama be impeached? Each reader must work through the issues for themselves on this key question. The argument for doing so is to protect America, knowing each successive day Barack stays in office, is another day of rape, humiliation and plunder of this great land. It seems certain Obama is at least a socialist, and further, a lawless individual who will do anything he wants to break America’s institutions to force Americans into accepting Marxism. Undoubtedly, he believes he would be helping the world to do so. But sincerity does not cure the great harm he is inflicting by his socialist delusions.

Therefore, because Barack is clearly doing many things to unilaterally harm and “change” America towards more socialism, and perhaps communism—he must be impeached. This is not just for purposely sabotaging our economy like a good Marxist, but for the wicked human rights disasters that have occurred in all far-leftist countries. Further, we can see quite clearly if a US president is obviously trying to harm America, for whatever reason, they can be impeached based upon the historic meaning of the process. All we need conclude is the president is doing a “political” attack—that is a purposeful assault against the US to harm the country. And Obama surely is doing so.

But we must wait for the November 2010 elections and see the fear in Democrat eyes, after they suffer historic defeat, and then pounce on the opportunity to drive this leftist maniac from power forever. We may never have another chance to save the home of global freedom. As Reagan once said, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” ~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967.

Thank you and shalom.


Comments Off on Is Obama Just Incompetent Or Is He Deliberately Making Things Worse?

Filed under Uncategorized