Wednesday, March 17, 2010


"Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Article 1, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

What is an emolument? This is a prize that arises from employment or an office, which normally comes about as a form of compensation, benefits, or perquisites. The original purpose of the emoluments clause was to prevent undue foreign meddling in the affairs of the United States. Robert Delahunty discusses this in depth in, “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.” (On the Gunny’s recommended reading list).

“Wary, however, of the possibility that such gestures might unduly influence American officials in their dealings with foreign states, the Framers institutionalized the practice of requiring the consent of Congress before one could accept “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from … [a] foreign State.”

Thus, it is very clear that Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize IS an emolument and SHOULD have been consented to by Congress. In fact, Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, may also be chargeable as an accessory after the fact for NOT demanding this. Ignorance of the Law Nancy, is no excuse.

It should be known that President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing that could be documented as warranting said prize. He was awarded it by the Committee in order to excert some sort of influence on the President of the United States. President Obama received a framed diploma, a medal, and the monetary award of $1.4 million. Whether he gives the monetary sum to charity or not, he violated the Constitution, namely Section 9 of Article 1, by accepting the prize. The emoluments ban was confirmed in 1993 by then President Clinton’s Office of Legal Counsel. Thus, the Prize, given by a commission chosen by the parliament of Norway, the legislative body of a foreign state, makes the Nobel Peace Prize the gift of a foreign body. Whether in an official capacity or not, any acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize by a sitting President is a violation of Section 9 and thus, a violation of Section 4.

U.S. Code, Title 5, Part III, Subpart F, Chapter 73, Subchapter IV, Section 7342, clearly states about the receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations that if the Congress did not consent to the acceptance of the gift: “the decoration is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States, shall become the property of the United States, and shall be deposited by the employee, within sixty days of acceptance, with the employing agency for official use.”

Thus, President Obama violated the law when he donated that money to charity in that said money was not his to donate. This is no less a crime than someone taking something that does not belong to them and donating it to, say, the Salvation Army. The financial award of the Nobel Peace Prize, and anything worth more than a minimal gift amount described in US Code for Federal employees, does not and never did belong to President Obama, but rather, was the property of the United States. This property could only be disposed of by the General Services.

There is a precedence here in that progressive president Theodore Roosevelt waited to receive the prize until after he left office and became a private citizen again. Indeed, it should be noted that he turned the money over to a federal committee (which included: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor) which used the money for a foundation in the United States.

That the 1.4 million dollars belonged to the United States of America and thus the citizens therein, is quite clear. So when President Obama donated the money to a charity, it was a crime.

The bankruptcy of the Chrysler Corporation and the dealings in it by the White House are clearly a violation of the separation of powers in the Constitution between the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch.

Case-in-Point: President Obama appointed a task force to handle the bankruptcy of Chrysler. It was clear that Obama pressured the stock holders to take 29 cents on the dollar in return for their investment while giving the UAW a much higher return and a 55% controlling interest in the corporation. This was reported widely in the news. This is in violation of bankruptcy protection laws since when a company requests, through legal means (court), protection from creditors while they work to restructure their company, there should be no pressure from creditors or outside influence to force a decision. It is also the work of the court, not a federal task force, to assist with the restructuring of the company to provide a more efficient use of the assets in paying off debtors AND in restructuring the company so that it can become a viable profit making entity.

FACT: Chrysler budgeted 134 million dollars for advertising while in bankruptcy. The task force cut that budget by 50%. Clearly, the Executive Branch exceeded its authority by controlling this budget when it was under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch.

FACT: Chrysler bondholders are investing on behalf of others (pension funds, trusts, individuals, etc) and have a fiduciary obligation to their investors to maximize the value of their holdings. When the task force, appointed by President Obama, forced them to accept a settlement that was much LESS that the fair value, this was coercion and extortion by the task force and Obama since he directed it. The bondholders and investors were forced to breach their fiduciary duty and thus, they are liable as well.

The Obama administration does not have the Constitutional authority to negotiate, restructure, decide stock options, stock contracts, bonus contracts, or who and how much stock holders are payed for their investment. When this administration decided to play around in the budgetary matters of GM, while they sought bankruptcy protection, it was a violation of the Constitution. Only the Judicial Branch can handle this issue and Eric Holder was also remiss in his duties by allowing by default or decision, Obama’s task force to get involved with it.

President Obama was also in violation of the Constitution when he directed that the Census be taken from the Commerce Department and relocated to the White House. The Congress directed that the Census be run by the Commerce Department in 1902. Only the Congress can redirect it. Again, Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, was remiss in her duties to protest this, even though the measure failed.

President Obama’s stimulus package was in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment. (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) His proposed second stimulus plan would be yet another violation of the Constitution AND his Oath of Office. It can also be said that Obama’s stimulus plan was a violations of the 1st, 4th, 7th, and 9th Amendments as well. He has again violated Articles One, Two, Four, and Six in the US Constitution. Congress, again doing nothing about it, is criminally liable as well.


Article I: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama has violated the US Constitution and his Oath of Office, he must be removed.

Article II: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama has clearly intended to dismantle the US Constitution through excessive use of Executive Orders and bypassing the Congress and the Senate, he must be removed.

Article III: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama has intended to weaken our national defense by unilateral nuclear disarmament, he must be removed.

Article IV: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama has intended to weaken our national defense by vowing to close Guantanamo Bay and thus, fail to properly prosecute the enemies of the United States, he must be removed.

Article V: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama has weakened our national defense by barring the Central Intelligence Agency from using enhanced interrogation methods against foreign terrorists, he must be removed.

Article VI: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama has intended to weaken our national defense by transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to a prison on US soil, this will take us back to a pre-9/11 mentality when acts of terrorism were treated as a law enforcement issue, he must be removed.

Article VII: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama has intended to weaken our national defense by bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York City for trial before a federal judge, it will allow our enemies to manipulate the rights provided by the US Constitution and endanger US citizens, he must be removed.

Article VIII: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama has weakened our national defense by releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees back to where they can return to terrorism against the United States and its citizens, i.e., the release of detainees back to known terrorist countries as Yemen, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, in 2009, he must be removed.

Article IX: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama has weakened our national defense by releasing our sources and methods on interrogation tactics to the public, in 2009, and releasing memos on our practices to get prisoners to share intelligence about past and future attacks, he must be removed.

Where are the politicians on all of these Constitutional violation? Why hasn’t even ONE America-loving politician publicly questioned his clear violations of the Constitution and American law? Why hasn’t one single court in the land questioned these violations? Why aren’t the States in this Union arguing the Federal overstepping of their Constitutional bounds more vociferously? Why are the separation of the powers of each Branch of the Federal Government being violated at will and WHY is nothing being done about it? When will Obama's absolute and total disregard for our Constitution be challenged? When will the legal scrutiny of his numerous violations of the Constitution commence and when will they FINALLY be brought before the courts?

He is the president. He is not God. He is the president. He is not the Emperor of the United States of America. He does not rule by fiat or royal edicts. We are not serfs or peasants but citizens in a free nation ruled by the Constitution and we CONSENT to be governed! The Gunny CHALLENGES him on his policies, decisions, and doctrines that put this nation in jeopardy, that hurt, harm, or hamper the economy, and imperils the citizens of the US. His ideology MUST be challenged for it is not in keeping with the American way of life.

Even though Obama himself stated at a dinner: “I was born on Krypton and sent here…to save the planet Earth,” he is not Superman. He is bound by the same laws as we are. It is time to start the impeachment process of him.


  1. Oh, yeah.
    I can just see Comrade Pelosi leading the charge to impeach Obama.
    About as well as I can see the Senate trying him.
    They are not going to do anything because they are accomplishing their agenda even while America is protesting their leftwards march.
    Or maybe I have that wrong.
    But you see the problem.
    You ask 'em to inspect their own aszhole,
    they will report back they find it a pleasant
    shade of brown...

  2. buck,

    HAHA! You're right, they'll ignore it but hopefully SOMEONE will take up the call.

  3. Laws? They don't need no stinkin' laws!

    They're probably lamenting the fact that they couldn't get rid of the first and second amendments before they pulled all this crap.

  4. beachmom,

    That's a good point! The outrage across the nation is PALPABLE at this point. Obysmal is now upside down in his approval/disapproval numbers according to Gallup.

    I can't WAIT for Nov 2012.

  5. Gunny,
    I didn't realize just how many laws Obama is breaking. I knew that there were several things, but not the extent you pointed out.
    Who can do something? Nepolitano on Fox says something must be done first, then someone can take it to court. Now I see he already HAS broken laws. Why hasn't someone that CAN do something' DO IT?
    I've never been afraid for my country before,(well, when Kerry was running) But I am seriously afraid for her now!!
    Keep up, keeping us informed. And when we can do something. I know we can in November, and in 2012, but I don't want it to be too late.

  6. Nanna,

    It will take someone making a case for it. We can do little but VOTE and petition our reps/sens to do something about this.

    I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on Rezko and the paid-for Illinois Senate seat that Obama bartered with.

  7. Gunny,

    Well thought out and well written as always. IMHO, most of the congress could be brought up on the some of the same charges. I say throw them all out, and start from scratch with new leadership, leadership that values Freedom and Liberty.

  8. Charles,

    I have long thought that we need to hold trials on members of Congress and examine their activities. If they've violated the Constitution at ANYTIME in their career, they're done. Guys like Rangel and Jefferson should NEVER have gone on as long as they have.

  9. Come Nov. when the republicans take control of both houses, this dream may become a reality.

    If Obama is impeached, biden will take over. How do we get him gone too, well only if Pelosi is no longer the speaker.

  10. Biden is a moron and a walking gaffe machine but he is not a radical Marxist like Comrade Zero is. Biden can finish out the last of Zero's term and then get smashed in a landslide.

  11. Mark Levin has a lawsuit all ready to be filed if they use the Slaughter rule.

  12. beachmom,

    and he really IS a Constitutional scholar, unlike Obama and 99% of the Congress!

  13. NONE of this should come as a surprize to anyone. This is the SAME asshat who stated in an interview that HE believed the Constitution was a charter of negative liberties. Negative to a fukkin' dictator wanna-be,maybe. WHERE the hell is the GOP on all this? Most likely praying to God THEIR Constitutional malfeasance isn't smoked out. If Steele had any cojones at all,HE would be leading the charge.Oh,hell,WHAT am I thinking? Can't do that,oh no,not to a bro.

  14. clyde,

    You're right, the GOP IS JUST AS GUILTY! That is what the pols don't get. We want it stopped and the Constitution adhered to!

    That is why WE have to do it through the Tea Party, protests, melting down their phone lines, and forcing them to stop their antics.

  15. Okay, this is the fourth time I have tried to post this.
    I just watched Judge Nepolitino on Neal Cavuto He said that the courts, even the Supreme Court won't interfere with the Dems, even using the Slaughter bill. That they can pretty uch run things the way they want to.
    I want to know If the Supreme Court won't uphold the Constitution against those trying to destroy it, and this Republic, then why have a Constitution??? Is it only for the honest?
    I am angry, and confused!!

  16. Nanna,

    It has to be brought to the courts which is why Levin has a lawsuit ready to roll. The SCOTUS cannot just jump in and rule. Be calm, Levin is a genius. Once he ties it up in court and challenges it on a Constitutional basis, it will take YEARS to work it through and it will be chucked as unconstitutional.

  17. Nanna,

    Virginia just stated that they would SUE if it passes.

    This fight is FAR from over.

  18. Gunny
    Thank you, I feel much better. Nepolitano said he doesn't agree with Levin. I didn't hear what Levin had to say. But if you say he's a genius, then I believe you.
    Good for Virginia!!!

  19. Hah. what a bunch of idiots. Are you people really serious?

  20. Gunny,
    Great article and I love the picture... it's worth a thousand words. Sums it up nicely.

  21. Guns! Mark Levin said he had the complaint ready to go. Hewitt's friend, John Eastman, said lawsuits should filed by every AG in every state swamping the system. Go for it!

    BTW Guns! I asked you this before. Are you one of dem dere former badd a$$ Force Recon Gunny Sar'hints?

  22. Well, Gunny, it didn't take long. You have your first troll droppings. In true to form fashion for their ilk, always the cowards, the eunuch posted anonymously.

  23. After the way Obama dissed the Supreme Court at the State of the Union speech, they may be more than willing to hear Levin's case.

  24. The kenyan usurper has always been the criminal you describe above Gunny. The only career he has ever had was the extortion of OPM to enrich himself and radical extremist friends. The time for Impeachment, Removal and Repeal is past due.

  25. Unless I heard it wrong on Fox...

    Somethng like 36 states have suits ready. So Levin won't be alone. Looks like a class action on the horizon, to me.

  26. I'm glad to see you're still as loony as ever - maybe this blog will kick you out too. That would be a shame because you are such a perfect example of the insanity of the far fringe right and you deserve to exercise your freedom of speech. You are however a contemptible fact-twister and out right liar when it comes to any opinion that isn't in perfect alignment with your own psychosis.


  27. Boe,

    No, not a recon guy, just a regular ol fleet marine. (ret)

  28. Saltwater,

    You know, libtrolls give valuable insight into the result of rampant liberalism. WELCOME them like you would a lab rat.

  29. RE,

    Exactly right. As with all criminals, he's make a mistake and get snagged. Clinton did.

  30. Buck,

    It's about time the states began to twist the federal colossus' tail!

  31. Linus,

    I see that you could not refute any FACTS here, just sling mud and hope it sticks. BTW, TH probably screwed up the redirect, they've done it before. I like it here better, making money off of google ads AND bashing libs.

  32. You have offered no FACTS to refute. Screwed up the redirect? OK - sure you didn't say THE word you've been longing to use re Obama?


  33. Finally got around to bookmarking the new site. Looks good.

    I gather that Utah and Colorado are preparing petitions to force a vote on nullification of the personal mandate in the Obamacare bill similar to that passed by Virginia. While I don't normally sign petitions, I WILL sign this one.

    I wonder if it isn't possible to find a way to use the 25th Amendment to declare Mr. Obama clinically insane (Retired Geek's description, among others, of how Mr. Obama's upbringing and actions fit the diagnosis of malignant narcissistic personality disorder suggests he really is clinically insane). Actually, as liberals and leftists by their own choices to deny Reality and their places in it are ALL clinically insane, it shouldn't be impossible to apply the same diagnosis to Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democratic leadership (and probably a fair number of Republicans as well), and declare them unfit for office.

    Just for the fun of it, I'm working on a new novel called "Reality Bites," about what happens when 12 40 meter nickel iron meteors take out the capitals of all the nuclear powers and all the major religious centers, right at the height of an Obama clone's speech declaring him President for Life (Feb 7th, 2011). You could say the results, as far as the story goes, are a conservative/libertarian dream come true. If and when I ever get it to the point where I'm willing to share it, I'll let you know.

    I'll be very interested to see what happens over the next few months...

  34. Pheonix Lady,

    I noticed you capitalized the r in reality - was that to clarify the distiction between your crazed Limbaugh "reality" and the actual reality in which the vast majority of America lives?

    If not, then English must not be your first language - maybe German?


  35. Obama won a nobel peace prize only after 1 year as President. That's akin to an author winning a Pulitzer for writing 1 chapter of a book. Obama should've never accepted it; it made him look like an idiot. I'll tell ya what- the candidate well must've been pretty dry.