THE TRIAL & IMPEACHMENT OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

"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.

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT:

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.