In an absolutely outrageous move which further substantiates the Obama Administration’s anti-American and divisive philosophy, the State Department submitted a report to the UN that was critical of Arizona’s immigration law SB 1070.
Isn’t the President supposed to support and positively represent this country?
If he was so incensed with Arizona’s law, why didn't the federal government’s lawsuit against the state mention racism or abridgment of rights?
Even more reprehensible, he had the audacity to allow such a specious report to be submitted to an organization that is saturated with vile human rights abuses.
Interestingly, he also had the suit adjudicated in a District Court in Arizona where the judge was a known liberal appointed by Bill Clinton. This approach is constitutionally not legal and the ruling should be nullified.
Why? The US Constitution enumerates specifically that in cases where the Federal government sues a state, only the Supreme Court can hear and rule on such matters.
This is all part of Obama’s radical agenda to denigrate and destroy America and render it mediocre at best.
OBAMA MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!
Brewer condemns State Department for mentioning Arizona law in human rights report to UN
August 27, 2010 Associated Press
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
“Putting aside Obama’s inept leadership, weakening of our national defenses and transparent attempt to socialize our great nation, there are a number of more practical crimes that once investigated could lead to Obama’s impeachment and perhaps even his well deserved imprisonment.”
So states Fred Dardick, an Impeach Obama contributor, who has listed 25 crimes which he strongly feels should be investigated by the House in 2011. One or more of these may then serve as a strong basis for the filing of impeachment charges against Obama. On July 26th we posted an editorial by an former Congressman calling for his impeachment as well (Former Congressman Tom Tancredo Calls For Obama’s Impeachment).
We have been calling for impeachment of Obama for a long time for myriad reasons. He presents an unprecedented existential threat to the welfare and survival of America as we have known it in the past – founded on principles of liberty, freedom, equality, justice and individuality and with a non-intrusive government.
In fact, the primary motivation and impetus for the creation of this website was the realization of the threats and risks to a free America that Obama presented combined with a far-left radical Democrat juggernaut in the Senate and House of Representatives. Information needs to be disseminated so we can all be informed and aware of what is transpiring and act accordingly. As we have just recently learned regarding the media collusion in the Journolist scandal, such information has been egregiously manipulated, controlled and even suppressed to support a far-left agenda (and candidate in Obama). The “main stream” media has become a de facto political wing and propaganda source for the Democratic Party and hence, the functioning government.
This is an incredibly dangerous situation for us American citizens and for the survival of our Democracy.
In the following trenchant, thorough and convincing editorial written by Tom Tancredo, who was a five term member of Congress, he calls for the impeachment of Obama. He concisely sums up the immense danger that Obama presents to our country by stating that:
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.
If we can vote in enough Republicans to take over the House and Senate in November, then we will have what it takes to impeach Obama's - though we may also need to coax our elected officials to pursue this course of action.
The case for impeachment Obama has violated his oath of office over immigration
Tom Tancredo July 22, 2010
Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."
I've always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.
In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.
Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles. To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or "transcended" through international agreements or "norms."
Mr. Obama's paramount goal, as he so memorably put it during his campaign in 2008, is to "fundamentally transform America." He has not proposed improving America - he is intent on changing its most essential character. The words he has chosen to describe his goals are neither the words nor the motivation of just any liberal Democratic politician. This is the utopian, or rather dystopian, reverie of a dedicated Marxist - a dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House.
Because of the power he wields over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and even health care, his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it - all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.
Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.
Mr. Obama's actions, not just his words, show the threat he poses. A level of government deficit spending unheard of since World War II and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see represent an unacceptable threat to our economic security and our children's future. Mr. Obama could be the first president to guarantee that the next generation of Americans has a lower standard of living than their parents.
Mr. Obama's most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans' desire to negotiate a "comprehensive" immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.
There is no higher duty of the federal government and our elected representatives than to protect our nation from invasion. Multiple reports and testimony before Congress by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials have stated that a porous border with Mexico is "a path" terrorists will use if they can. Some would-be terrorists, including at least one associated with Hezbollah, already have. Recent reports of contacts between Hezbollah and Mexican drug cartels make it all but certain that terrorists intent on destroying us will come across our southwestern border. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the administration to do everything in its power to keep Americans safe. Our safety is not a bargaining chip for another amnesty - or for any other political objective whatsoever.
Mr. Obama's refusal to live up to his own oath of office - which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion - requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama.
Tom Tancredo is a former member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and five-term member of Congress from Colorado. He serves as chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation.
Millions of misguided voters found Obama to be quite articulate and disarming before the Presidential elections. Who knew that these “skills” would be applied in a widespread manner such as in arms negotiations and national defense? In case you missed it, Obama is effectively unilaterally disarming the United States and exposing us to a future apocalypse by mandating reductions, removal and/or cancellations of defensive and offensive weaponry.
Such actions are suicidal, indefensible and irresponsible. As discussed in the following article, Obama’s thorough disarming of our country will make us infinitely more vulnerable not just to Russia or China but also to North Korea, Iran, small belligerent nations and terrorists groups.
In our opinion, if Obama sets these actions in motion, Congress with public pressure should investigate the possibility of grounds for impeachment.
Dropping The Shield
Investors Business Daily 06/30/2010
National Security: The administration is ready to sign a treaty stripping us of our ability to defend ourselves against enemy nuclear missiles, including Iran's and North Korea's. In space, no one can hear you surrender.
On Monday, the ground-based Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, part of the U.S. missile defense shield, successfully shot down a ballistic missile launched from a ship's deck off Kauai, Hawaii. The test simulated an Iranian SCUD launched from the deck of a ship off the U.S. coast, which, if armed with a nuke, could devastate the American heartland.
The simulated Scud was launched from the deck of the decommissioned 603-foot amphibious assault ship Tripoli. U.S. Army soldiers of the 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade from Fort Bliss, Texas, successfully intercepted it with a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor.
Missile defense, the dream of President Reagan, is a successful reality. With a layered system of ground-based, long-range interceptors, the sea-based Aegis system and theater systems such as the Patriot and THAAD, we can defend against — rather than just avenge — a ballistic missile attack.
Yet our disarmer in chief, President Obama, stands ready to strip us naked before our enemies by signing a treaty designed to demilitarize space. Since interceptors such as THAAD are designed to hit their targets on the edge of space and can be modified to kill satellites, such a treaty would effectively ban their use.
Almost simultaneously on Monday, the Obama administration unveiled a new space policy that reverses the Bush administration policy of unrestricted access to and operations in space. The Bush policy, released in August 2006, said it "rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space." We had a right to defend ourselves.
That right will be surrendered unilaterally by a new space policy under which the U.S. will "consider proposals and concepts for arms control measures if they are equitable, effectively verifiable and enhance the national security of the United States and its allies."
Such fairness is in the eyes of the beholder, and this administration does not have a good track record of enhancing the national security of the United States. For example, it has cut the number of ground-based interceptors planned for Alaska and Hawaii, both within range of North Korea's Taepodong-2.
It has also betrayed our Polish and Czech allies by scrapping plans for a similar system in Europe. And it has scrapped tested and ready systems like the Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL), a modified Boeing 747-F that can be deployed anywhere in the world, loitering off an enemy's coast to destroy its missiles in their vulnerable boost phase. And it's reusable.
These "proposals and concepts" could come soon in the form of the PAROS (prevention of arms race in space) treaty. Like the nuclear freeze once proposed at the height of the Cold War, these Munich clones are designed not to prevent war, but to disarm America.
Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, among others, would like to see us unilaterally give up our ability to render their huge investments in nuclear missiles irrelevant.
A simple Iranian Scud missile, with a nuclear warhead, could be fired from an inconspicuous freighter in international waters off our coast and detonated high above the U.S. It would wreak near total devastation on America's technological, electrical and transportation infrastructure. The ship could then be scuttled, taking the identity of the attacker with it.
If a hostile power detonated a nuclear weapon high over the U.S., generating an electro-magnetic pulse that would fry virtually every circuit and electronic device in the country, America and its economy could be sent back a century or more.
Iran has practiced launching and detonating Scuds in midflight from ships in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile, a test consistent with an EMP attack.
Surrendering missile defense through such a treaty amounts to more unilateral disarmament in the face of dangerous and hostile enemies. The president wants us to rally around a white flag.
The Obama Administration egregiously lied to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer regarding the federal government’s assistance on illegal immigration. Instead, through a Hillary Clinton information leak while in South America, it was revealed that he would instead sue Arizona regarding its new illegal immigration law.
Both the impending action and the way this was exposed are despicable!
Compounding the corrupt and destructive and obstructive behavior of Obama, he told Arizona Senator Kyl that he had no intention whatsoever of securing the border until a comprehensive immigration solution was passed.
That’s right. He is subjecting Arizona as well as the rest of the country to invasion by violent Mexican drug gangs and members of the drug cartel, countless illegal aliens as well as Islamic terrorists from around the world.
And this is all for political reasons to serve his purposes.
This is not the action of a President of the United States. This is the action of an anti-President. A mole. Someone who does not care about the welfare of this country and who would rather see it harmed or destroyed.
Obama has stated this in his own words in a variety of ways. His actions over the last year and a half comport with this pernicious desire.
Obama Must Be Removed From Office!
Support Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in her battle to protect the state of Arizona as well as the rest of the United States against the malignant actions of Obama and his administration.
Obama’s dereliction of duty regarding expeditiously and appropriately responding to the Gulf oil spill is now being compensated for by strong-arm threats from him and other Administration officials. The American public, including much of his fawning liberal support base, find these to be offensive, unwarranted and not constructive. They are repulsed by his initial actions of sending lawyers through Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate legal infractions rather than marshalling clean-up and stop-up crews.
His most recent response was to form a committee filled with his appointees to deal with the spill two months after it occurred. And who are the members of it? Oil industry experts? Individuals with maritime expertise?
Of course not! They are bureaucrats, environmentalist and political insiders – Obama ideologues. There is no real world experience related to this scenario but that is not the least bit surprising with this arrogant, corrupt, incompetent and ideologically rigid and radical administration.
And these are just a few of the infinite reasons that Obama’s support continues to plummet even among his previously most ardent supports.
Obama's thuggery is useless in fighting spill
Michael Barone June 20, 2010
Thuggery is unattractive. Ineffective thuggery even more so. Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Barack Obama and his administration to BP's Gulf oil spill.
Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's remark that he would keep his "boot on the neck" of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell's definition of totalitarianism as "a boot stamping on a human face -- forever." Except that Salazar's boot hasn't gotten much in the way of results yet.
Or consider Obama's undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick." Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you're in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the Gulf, is an attractive target.
But you don't always win arguments that way. The Obama White House gleefully took on Dick Cheney on the issue of terrorist interrogations. It turned out that more Americans agreed with Cheney's stand, despite his low poll numbers, than Obama's.
Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.
The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety.
This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale. In defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation. Ineffective thuggery.
And what about the decision not to waive the Jones Act, which bars foreign-flag vessels from coming to the aid of the Gulf cleanup? The Bush administration promptly waived it after Katrina in 2005. The Obama administration hasn't and claims unconvincingly that, gee, there aren't really any foreign vessels that could help.
The more plausible explanation is that this is a sop to the maritime unions, part of the union movement that gave Obama and other Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle. It's the Chicago way: Dance with the girl that brung ya.
Or the decision to deny Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposal to deploy barges to skim oil from the Gulf's surface. Can't do that until we see if they've got enough life preservers and fire equipment. That inspired blogger Rand Simberg to write a blog post he dated June 1, 1940: "The evacuation of British and French troops from the besieged French city of Dunkirk was halted today, over concerns that many of the private vessels that had been deployed for the task were unsafe for troop transport."
Finally, the $20 billion escrow fund that Obama pried out of the BP treasury at the White House when he talked for the first time, 57 days after the rig exploded, with BP Chairman Tony Hayward. It's pleasing to think that those injured by BP will be paid off speedily, but House Republican Joe Barton had a point, though an impolitic one, when he called this a "shakedown."
For there already are laws in place that insure that BP will be held responsible for damages and the company has said it will comply.
So what we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on pre-existing laws but on decisions by one man, pay czar Kenneth Feinberg.
Feinberg gets good reviews from everyone. But the Constitution does not command "no person . . . shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law except by the decision of a person as wise and capable as Kenneth Feinberg." The Framers stopped at "due process of law."
Obama doesn't. "If he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so," write the editors of the Economist, who then suggest that markets see Obama as "an American version of Vladimir Putin." Except that Putin is an effective thug.
The magnitude of the violence associated with the uncontrolled drug smuggling and illegal immigration is so great in southern Arizona that the federal government is now warning American citizens to avoid these areas because of the danger. In effect, we have lost control of part of our own country because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to protect the border, and by doing so, protecting Americans.
The cynical, divisive, irresponsible and condescending comments expressed and lies told by Obama regarding the new Arizona illegal immigration law, the security of our borders and the “rights” of these aliens as compared to the rights of American citizens further adds to ther overwhelming evidence of his lack of fitness and competence to be President and the emergent need to seek his removal from office after the November elections.
The following editorial describes the deleterious effects that Obama’s aggressive remarks and rebukes toward Israel have had on that country. These, by themselves, are supremely important. However, if you look at the big picture, the damage that Obama has engendered by his lack of leadership and executive experience, his naiveté and disingenuous ideologies, and ill-advised commentaries, apologies and rebukes is incalculable.
In America, he has unleashed divisiveness and racism (ie. - incendiary comments on Arizona’s illegal immigration legislation with countless cities and organizations now attacking or boycotting Arizona- also pitting one state against another; his countenancing of Helen Thomas’ anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rants setting a poor example; dropping prosecution of the New Black Panther Party in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case; maintaining strong associations with black racists such as Cornel West, Henry Jones, Louis Farrakhan, Jay-Z, etc.)
Internationally, by denigrating America and apologizing for it, insulting and /or decreasing support and protection for our long-time allies (Great Britain, Israel, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Honduras, etc.), remaining silent in the defense of freedom and democracy (ignoring the Iranian people uprising against the theocratic repressive Islamic regime), talking loudly but carrying a very tiny stick (none to useless threats to Iran; loser in nuclear talks to Russia/Putin) and denying Islamic terrorist we are unquestionably witnessing the expected consequences.
Our enemies are emboldened and that spells death and disaster. There has been an explosion of terrorism attempts (fortunately they have thus far failed) in this country since he took office. Iran is progressing unimpeded in its quest for nuclear weapons which it will use – and which will precipitate a conflagration of unparalleled proportions. Turkey and other countries see a green light to be aggressive to Israel. Venezuela is saber rattling even more and upsetting the stability in South America.
And the list goes on.
Obama is not fit to be President. He must be removed from office to protect our country and the world!
Open Season On The Jewish State
Investors Business Daily 06/08/2010
In its latest slight, the White House temporarily withdrew an invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following Israel's killing of nine.
Israel: Of all the ironies of the Obama presidency, the strangest is now unfolding: The election to purge American racism somehow lowered the bar for anti-Semitism.
The 89-year-old Helen Thomas had been roosting in the front row of the White House press briefing room for decades. Yet her ugly feelings that Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and return "home" to Poland or Germany or America — or wherever it is the Jews belong — took this long to bubble up out of the cauldron of her gut in proximity to a camera.
The now ex-doyenne of the White House Press Corps was long known as no friend of the Jewish state, but somehow the intentional chill that the Obama administration has engineered in U.S.-Israeli relations has reduced the caution regarding attacking the state of Israel, and undoubtedly helped set her off.
It's almost like people sensing that the brawny big brother, America, has grown tired of going to the trouble of escorting his persecuted little brother, Israel, through the neighborhood. And all that long-suppressed resentment is beginning to burst out now that the protector is not on hand.
"Israel is finally getting its comeuppance" seems to be the perception of many of the critics of the Middle East's only democracy, save for U.S.-liberated Iraq.
In wondering how someone in public life, who was in her 20s when the Nazis were slaughtering millions of Jews in Germany and Poland, could act like the caricature of a bigot from an earlier era, it's impossible not to consider the disintegration over the past 16 months of our relationship with our staunchest Mideast ally.
The latest slight was the temporary withdrawal of an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to come to the White House after Israeli forces killed nine aboard a Turkish-backed flotilla trying to break an Israeli blockade of Gaza last week.
It turns out, according to reports, that the administration's rejection of Israeli intelligence reports and consequent refusal to provide advanced weapons led to Netanyahu refusing to authorize the use of tear gas and other anti-riot measures. After Israeli commandos were soon outmatched by Turkish personnel, live fire was ordered by the Israeli naval commander.
The White House demand that Israel "exercise extreme caution and restraint," as a diplomat told WorldTribune.com, apparently ended up costing lives. Would this "Freedom Flotilla" have even attempted to break an Israeli blockade if Israel still had our strong backing? And would Iran be threatening to use its Revolutionary Guards to help smash the blockade with a naval escort?
Would the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency be placing Israel's nuclear weapons power status on its governing board's agenda this month for the first time in nearly two decades if the American-Israeli relationship wasn't deteriorating?
Would the likes of bush-league diplomatic players such as Turkey and Brazil be coming out of the woodwork with a deal to threaten even the tepid sanctions against an Islamofascist regime in Iran that will soon be able to launch a nuclear warhead against Israel?
A good case could be made that little or none of this would be happening if the U.S. had not let it be known, in various ways, that it wasn't going to be supporting Israel the way it used to.
With photos circulating of the president hugging Helen Thomas in the press room, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs scrambled to condemn her remarks as "offensive and reprehensible." And then the president followed with a personal condemnation.
But distancing itself from Thomas' bigotry doesn't allow the president to escape blame. Like former President Jimmy Carter, who used the flotilla incident to accuse Israel of "besieging Gaza" and claim that because of Israel, "the people of Gaza remain isolated and deprived of their basic human rights," this administration believes Israel should be blamed for defending itself from terrorism.
In fact, the Jewish state, surrounded by bloodthirsty enemies, should be lauded for its restraint over the decades, not subject to further persecution.
Obama has unequivocally displayed a criminal dereliction of his duty as President to appropriately address and assist in the BP oil disaster. As detailed below, he was informed within the first 24 hrs. of the magnitude of the spill and the potential extent of the environmental damage.
What were his responses?
Very little, initially. It took him close to 2 weeks even to visit the area. None of the government’s contingency plans were implemented early one. In fact, his most forceful response within the first several weeks has been to assign Attorney General Holder the task of looking into criminal charges and sending attorneys to the area.
We are betting that these lawyers can actually plug the hole – using all the paper they will generate in their documenting the legal liabilities and constructing a case against BP! May be they can also add the waste produced from Obama’s myriad White House galas during this period of time into the hole.
Even more criminally and just more evidence of why he should be impeached/removed from office:
In this seven week period of time, he has yet to directly talk to the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward. Unbelievably, it was beneath him to talk to the head of this multibillion dollar company in order to strategize and work together for a solution. Obama’s response as to why he hasn’t called the CEO was that words don’t mean anything, action does.
Ironically, Mr. Pretender President, it is YOUR WORDS THAT DON’T MEAN ANYTHING.
YOUR ACTIONS CLEARLY REVEAL WHAT AND WHO YOU ARE.
INCOMPETENT, ARROGANT, NARCISSISTIC, RACIST, HEDONISTIC and ANTI-AMERICAN
AND …
UNFIT TO BE PRESIDENT!
Butt Stops Here
Investors Business Daily 06/08/2010
Leadership: The president says he went to the Gulf to find out whose derriere to kick. After he gets his foot out of his own mouth, perhaps he can talk to us about that Coast Guard memo.
Scapegoating has become a hallmark of this administration. Certainly BP was responsible for the safe operation and maintenance of Deepwater Horizon. But after an accident in federal waters the federal government, which has a plan to save the entire planet from greenhouse gases, had no plan to save the Gulf from a single gushing well, with the possible exception of finger-pointing. In this administration, "BP" stands for "buck-passing."
In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer on Tuesday, President Obama said: "I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago, I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain. ... We talk to these folks because they potentially had the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."
The talking heads were talking about the Gulf in the two weeks it took the president to make his first appearance there. But Fox News and talk radio had no fire booms to instantly deploy — booms the government was supposed to have, according to a 1994 plan.
The president who has said he would not rest until the hole was plugged has had time to entertain celebrities from Bono to Paul McCartney, get in a few rounds of golf, attend concerts and fundraisers, and even yuk it up at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. He did not have time, apparently, to expedite Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's request for additional sand berm construction.
The president was quick, however, to send Attorney General Eric Holder to the Gulf to threaten BP oil executives with prosecution. On April 29, Jindal declared a state of emergency and begged federal officials for permission to build a network of sand berms to protect Louisiana marshes and beaches. A month later Jindal got permission to build 2% of the berms requested.
British Petroleum has been accused of lying about or at least of not knowing the true extent of the disaster. But documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity shed new light on what the president knew, and when.
Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has released documents indicating that on April 21, less than 24 hours after the BP rig exploded, the administration knew the magnitude of the disaster we were facing in the Gulf of Mexico.
"Potential environmental threat is 700,000 gallons of diesel on board the Deepwater Horizon and estimated potential of 8,000 barrels per day of crude oil, if the well were to completely blow out," the Coast Guard logged in the immediate aftermath.
Documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity show that within 72 hours, President Obama and his administration knew the BP spill could exceed the environmental damage caused by the Exxon Valdez running aground off Alaska in 1989.
"Americans have a right to be enraged by the spill, by top government officials caught off-guard and by the facts the White House omitted in explaining what it knew and when it knew it," said Issa.
They also have a right to be outraged by an administration that places blame instead of sharing it, and by a president who has time for commencements and fundraisers while passing the buck to a commission.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments