What constitutional experts say about high crimes,  misdemeanors

Should Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th president of the United  States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?

It’s not a question yet being asked or debated in the Big Media. But it is a  question being addressed by some members of Congress, by an increasing number of  pundits by activists on the left and the right – and for more than one or  two alleged constitutional offenses.

Some of those who have broached the subject include Reps. Trent Franks,  R-Ariz.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Steve Stockman; former Rep.  Ron Paul, R-Texas; former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Fox News’ Mike Huckabee;  former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy; left-leaning investigative  reporter Dave Lindorff; talk-radio host Mark Levin; former House Speaker and  presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; author and columnist Pat Buchanan and  others.

Article II,  Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “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.”

The U.S. House of Representatives has the power to commence impeachment  proceedings. If the House adopts an impeachment resolution, the U.S. Senate  conducts a trial and determines whether to convict or acquit. If an official is  convicted, he or she is removed from the position and may be barred from holding  office again. The official may also face criminal prosecution.

Only two U.S. president have been impeached by the House: Andrew Johnson and  Bill Clinton. However, both presidents were acquitted in the Senate. President  Richard Nixon resigned before the full House had voted on his impeachment.

This powerful legislative check on executive and judicial wrongdoing is  reserved for the most egregious offenses against the U.S. Constitution and the  republic.

During the debates of the Constitutional  Convention in 1787, James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment: “[S]ome provision should be made for defending the community against the  incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his  administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his  trust to foreign powers.”

In the Federalist Papers (No. 65), Alexander Hamilton wrote that a president  should be impeached for “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 society itself.”

WND assembled a bipartisan panel of top constitutional experts to evaluate 12  popular arguments for impeaching Obama.

You  asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach Pre...

Meet the experts

Bruce Fein

Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein

Bruce Fein is the legal scholar who is best known for having drafted articles  of impeachment against former President Bill Clinton for perjury after he lied  under oath about having sexual relations with an intern.

Fein also drafted articles of impeachment against former President George W.  Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney. In 2011, he drew up formal articles  of impeachment against President Obama for his use of military action against  Libya without congressional authorization.

Fein was a top Justice Department official under the Reagan administration.  He graduated with honors from Harvard Law School in 1972. Fein clerked for a  prestigious federal court, and has served in top positions in the Office of  Legal Counsel and the Office of Legal Policy. He has served as visiting fellow  for constitutional studies at the Heritage Foundation, adjunct scholar at the  American Enterprise Institute and guest lecturer at the Brookings Institute.

Fein specializes in constitutional and international law and is a frequent  witness before Congress. He is chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, founder  of Bruce Fein & Associates Inc. and The Lichfield Group and author of “Constitutional  Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for our Constit...

As for his political persuasion, Fein told WND, “I criticized Nixon. I  criticized Clinton. I criticized Bush and Cheney. I criticize Obama. I don’t  have any reluctance because I view myself as an American first.”

Herbert Titus

Constitutional scholar Herbert Titus

Herbert Titus, counsel to the law firm William J. Olson, previously taught  constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different  American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he was the  founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University.

And before that, he was a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney  with the Department of Justice.

Titus’ degrees are from Harvard and the University of Oregon, and he’s  admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, appellate courts in the 6th,  7th, 9th, 10th and other districts. His practice has taken him into courts more  than a dozen different states. He has testified on constitutional issues before  Congress. Titus has also testified on state and federal constitutional issues  before several state legislatures.

Titus has written numerous articles, book chapters and constitutional studies  and analyses. He is author of “God,  Man, and Law: The Biblical Principles,” a text on American common law.

Louis Fisher

Constitutional scholar Louis Fisher

Constitutional expert Louis Fisher is  scholar in Residence at the Constitution Project. Previously he worked for four  decades at the Library of Congress as senior specialist in separation of powers  and specialist in constitutional law. During his service with CRS, he was  research director of the House Iran-Contra Committee in 1987, writing major  sections of the final report.

Fisher is author of dozens of books specifically on constitutional law. He  received his doctorate in political science from the New School for Social  Research and has taught at Queens College, Georgetown University, American  University, Catholic University, Indiana University, Johns Hopkins University,  the College of William and Mary law school and the Catholic University law  school. Fisher has been invited to testify before Congress about 50 times on  constitutional issues.

Fisher’s specialties include constitutional law, war powers, budget policy,  executive-legislative relations and judicial-congressional relations.

Fisher told WND he voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but he and doesn’t let  partisan politics cloud his judgment when it comes to constitutional issues.

“I had plenty of criticism toward George W. Bush and Richard Nixon,” he said. “I’ve been just as harsh about Bill Clinton and Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson  and the rest. I’m not partisan, but I don’t flinch from saying what the evidence  is.”

Operation Fast & Furious

In June 2012, the Obama administration invoked executive  privilege to stop disclosure of documentation to Congress following Operation  Fast and Furious, a gun-walking scheme that resulted in the deaths of as many as  100 people, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

During the botched operation, the Justice Department’s  subdivision of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms lost approximately 2,000 weapons,  allowing many of them to flow freely across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the  hands of members of Mexican drug cartels.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder  in contempt of Congress, but U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen chose to ignore the  criminal resolution and not bring charges against Holder.

The Obama administration filed a motion on Jan. 11 to block a lawsuit  by  Judicial Watch demanding enforcement of a June 22, 2012, Freedom of  Information Act request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and  Furious, and “specifically all records subject to the claim of executive  privilege invoked by President Obama on or about June 20, 2012.”

What the experts say …

“That also probably could be an impeachable offense for Eric Holder,” Fein  told WND regarding the administration’s stonewalling on release of the missing  documents. “That’s ridiculous. In my judgment, Congress is entitled to any scrap  of information it wants for oversight. Some of it they may wish, for prudential  purposes, to keep in executive session. But Congress spends the money.

“I’ve gone up there and proposed statutes: ‘No moneys of the United States  can be expended by the executive branch to gather or collect information unless  it’s shared with Congress.’ That’s the end of the matter. If you don’t want to  share with Congress, you can’t collect. Congress, in my judgment, has a  preliminary right, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, to see anything in the executive branch.”

Fein said Holder should stop stonewalling and immediately present the  requested information to Congress.

“If he had any brains, he’d go ahead and reveal the documents,” he said. “The  executive branch is a servant of Congress. Congress is not the serf of some lord  of the manor in the White House.”

Fisher agreed with Fein. He told WND, “I was on the first panel testifying  about congressional access. I testified before Chairman Issa with three other  people, and we said congressional committees have full need for oversight to get  access to executive branch documentation. They can’t be told by the Justice  Department, ‘Sorry, we’re doing our own investigation’ or ‘Sorry, there’s some  sort of litigation.’

“Agencies get into trouble and usually the smart thing, and what they didn’t  do, is to say, ‘We made a terrible mistake and we apologize.’ They don’t do  that, so there’s more obstruction. The Inspector General report from the Justice  Department was like 5 inches of pages, and it was a devastating critique of the  Justice Department on how it behaved.

“I would have expected Obama to say, ‘Keep that cr-p away from me. I don’t  want to get near it.’ But he invoked executive privilege,” Fisher said. “Obstruction by the government is very, very serious.”

However, Titus told WND, “I would be less inclined to think that we ought to  hold the president directly responsible for that – primarily because it was not  really a policy that was developed initially during the Obama administration. It  was an inherited one, and apparently some of this was going on during the Bush  administration.

“It seems to me that the proper target of an investigation with regard to  this is the attorney general. He’s the one who’s directly responsible for  continuing the program. While President Obama is ultimately responsible,  strategically you don’t go after Obama when you have a target as easily  identified as Holder.”

Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’

In 2010, Obama ordered the assassination of a radical American-born Muslim  cleric who became an avowed member of al-Qaida’s affiliate in Yemen. Anwar  al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in September 2011, along with naturalized  U.S. citizen and al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan. Awlaki’s 16-year-old  American-born son, Abdulrahman, was killed in a similar strike two weeks  earlier.


While there is little argument that Awlaki was involved in terrorist  activity, the Obama administration failed to provide due process to the U.S.  citizens targeted for the use of deadly force. Awlaki had reportedly  communicated by email with Maj. Nadal Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who  murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. He had also been tied to the so-called “underwear bomber” who attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound plane with plastic  explosives sewn into his undergarments on Dec. 25, 2009. The FBI  suspected Awlaki had purchased airplane tickets for three of the Sept. 11,  2001, hijackers before the terrorist attacks.

Anwar al-Awlaki

However, Awlaki was born in New Mexico, and his  son was born in Denver, Colo. There has been no reported evidence that  Awlaki ever renounced his U.S. citizenship. In fact, Rep.  Charles Dent, R-Penn., introduced a 2010 resolution in the U.... but the legislation never made it out of the  Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and  International Law.

Awlaki spent years in the U.S. as an imam and a Muslim chaplain at George  Washington University before moving to Yemen. He had been in U.S. custody twice  and released before he was killed by the drone strike. Awlaki was detained in  2002 at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City for passport  fraud. A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that he had been released by the  FBI. He was also held for at least eight months in 2006 and 2007 and  subsequently released.

In 2002, Awlaki reportedly led  Muslim prayers on Capitol Hill.

Anwar al-Alwlaki's son, 16

He also reportedly  dined at the Pentagon as part of the U.S. milit... just months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional  Rights sued the U.S. government on behalf of Awlaki’s father, challenging the  federal government’s authority to conduct “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens  who are not in an armed conflict zone. A federal district court dismissed the  case in 2011.

In January this year, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan ruled  that the  Obama administration is not required to provide legal justific....

So how does the Obama administration determine who’s a terrorist for the  purpose of compiling its hit list?

Samir Kahn

A  confidential Justice Department “white paper,” which is not an official  legal memo, was released just last week to NBC News. It states that the U.S.  government can order targeted killing of American citizens if they are believed  to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force.”

In response to the memo, a bipartisan letter from 11 top-ranking senators to  President Obama stated, “It’s vitally important for Congress and the American  public to have a full understanding of how the executive interprets the limits  and boundaries of this particular authority.” The senators asked Obama for “any  and all legal opinions” that clarify the basis of his perceived power to “deliberately kill American citizens.”

Judge  Andrew Napolitano warned, “This 16-page white paper was written so vaguely  that the logic from it could actually be extrapolated to permit the president to  kill Americans here in the United States.”

Napolitano noted that Obama also violated another federal statute: “When the  president ramps up the war on terror or decides to move into another area or use  the CIA to engage people, whether to arrest them or to kill them, he’s required  to tell the Senate and House intelligence committees ahead of time and get their  consent. He apparently didn’t do that, and so [Congress is] burned by this.”

What the experts say …

“Some people argue, ‘Well, he’s only killing terrorists,’” Fein told WND. “Oh  really? How do you know? There’s no accountability. Was Mr. al-Alwaki’s son, a  16-year-old teenager having dinner, a terrorist? So whenever the president says  someone’s a terrorist, are they convicted? If the president says conservatives  are terrorists, is he going to kill them?

Fein argued that the killings were “tantamount to murder.”

“We know at a minimum there have been three, but perhaps many more. We’re  just guessing. You can’t have democracy and the rule of law if you never get to  know what the facts are and you just have to accept what the government says  they are. If you don’t have a trial, that’s the definition of tyranny.”

Because there was so much evidence against Alwaki, critics argue a conviction  could have been easily obtained by the Obama administration.

“It isn’t like they didn’t have evidence,” Fein said. “They had confession,  admission against interest. Any of them might plead guilty. Only an uncivilized,  savage people convict people without trial and sentence them to the gulag.  That’s what we read about in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Khrushchev and  Brezhnev. That’s what we read about in China under Mao. Is that what we want to  be?”

Fein also blasted the fact that the Obama administration’s justification for  the killing remained confidential until now.

“There’s a huge, strong legal case here, absolutely,” he said. “I worked in  the Office of Legal Counsel. I worked on impeachment of Nixon. The idea that I  would write a secret memo on something that’s an impeachable offense would be  insane. A legal rationale now becomes classified because it would tell the enemy  what constitutional theory you’re using justify this killing? You’ve got to be  kidding!”

Fisher agreed with Fein: “There are no possible grounds for ever keeping  legal reasoning secret. If a legal memo has sources and methods, just strike it  out and the reasoning must be made public. If you’re not willing to give your  reasoning, I’d ask, what’s going on? It’s probably that your reasons are not  very good.”

Titus told WND, “It’s quite remarkable that Congress has basically abandoned  this issue to the president, primarily by not addressing the issue in the  National Defense Authorization Act not only in 2012 but also in 2013, where it  basically gives the president carte blanche to detain any person that he  suspects to be guilty of aiding people involved in terrorism. The fact that  Congress won’t take a stand on that indicates that it wouldn’t intervene in the  president’s use of drones to assassinate people he suspects are actively engaged  in acts of terrorism even inside the United States.

“Basically, Obama is claiming the right to be the prosecutor on the grounds  that the whole world is a war zone. I think it’s an impeachable offense because  he’s neither using the civilian courts nor is he bringing them before our  military courts. What the president has done is simply defined the whole world  as a battleground.”

Upon reviewing the recently released “white paper,” Titus and attorney  William J. Olson wrote, “Now, we can see why the Department of Justice has been  so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis.  It is deeply  flawed – based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process  Clause.

“Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the  procedural  protections expressly provided in the Constitution’s Third Article that were  specifically designed to prohibit the president from taking the law into his own  hands, serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.”

You  asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach Pre...

‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session

The Constitution allows the president to nominate  judges and executive branch officials, but the Senate must confirm his nominees.  Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution authorizes the president to “fill up  all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.”

But while the Senate was in session in January 2012, Obama made recess  appointments of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection  Bureau and three members of the National Labor Relations Board.

Obama argued that because the Senate had been convening every three days, the  pro forma sessions didn’t allow any business to take place, so the Senate should  be considered in recess.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that  Obama’s three NLRB recess appointments violated the Constitution because they  weren’t made when the Senate was in recess. Now the Supreme Court has received a  petition asking the justices to consider the decision.

The  NLRB said it “respectfully disagrees” with the D.C. Circuit’s ... and  will proceed with business as usual because it trusts “the president’s position  in the matter will ultimately be upheld.”

What the experts say …

“I also denounce those,” Fein said, though he didn’t call for Obama’s  impeachment because he said the matter can be settled by lawsuits charging that  the occupants aren’t holding office legally.

“It’s ridiculous to claim there’s a recess even when the Senate is quite  there and available. In fact, Congress passed a bill during that period. They  weren’t in session for purposes of receiving a nomination? That’s such a joke.  That was another abuse.”

Fisher told WND, “I voted for Obama, but these people who say, ‘Oh, well he  taught constitutional law,’ well geez, he was a lecturer. He’s never written  anything on constitutional law in his life. I think that would be quite a slap  in his face if they said, ‘What the hell were you doing?’”

Titus said, “I think there’s a problem distinguishing President Obama and  earlier presidents who have been making recess appointments. It may be that  President Obama has been more bold and flourishing  in the way he has done  it, but it’s difficult to distinguish it from acts done before.

“I would think it would not be politic to bring this as a high crime and  misdemeanor when it really has been employed by other presidents and there’s a  genuine dispute with regard to its constitutionality. I think this should be  resolved in the normal courts of judicial review.”

Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval

Obama also appointed more than 30 unelected  “czars” to positions in  federal agencies while the Constitution requires that such appointments be  vetted by Congress. Article II, Section 2, allows the president to appoint  ambassadors, judges and other officers “with the Advice and Consent of the  Senate.”

What the experts say …

“Congress clearly has the authority to say, ‘No money shall go to pay the  salaries of X, Y, Z unless they’re subject to Senate confirmation,’ Fein said. “That’s really one where Congress, by its negligence, is not insisting on  accountability.”

Fisher told WND, “That is a big deal. A lot of people say, ‘Well, that’s been  going on a long time.’ In our form of government, citizens vote for  representatives, and representatives pass laws. You have people heading  departments, and they’re confirmed. There’s an understanding that we will call  you up whenever we need to. So there’s accountability through that process.

“Congress passed legislation saying there’d be no funds for three czars, and  they were named in the bill. Obama signed it into the law, but in the signing  statement, he said that’s unconstitutional because he has the ‘prerogative’ to  get the advice  he needs to implement statutes. Well, c’mon Obama. You  don’t have a prerogative to bring into the White House anybody you want at any  salary. It’s all done by law. It goes back to 1978 where Congress passed  legislation saying you have this number of people and these are their salaries  and Congress can increase or decrease that at any time.

“I think Obama had no idea what he was doing when he was using the word ‘prerogative.’ He can get all the advice he wants in the private sector, but  Congress decides how many aides the president will have and what salaries they  get.”

Titus said the move wasn’t unconstitutional, and Obama shouldn’t be held  responsible because the popularity of czars under his administration is “Congress’ fault.”

“There’s always been an assumption that the president is entitled to certain  people who would not be vetted by the Senate: chief of staff, for example, and  others where there’s a real keen interest in making sure that the person who  occupies a position is loyal to the president,” Titus said.

“I think the reason why President Obama has appointed so many people in  addition to that is because the government is run basically by an unelected  bureaucracy. One of the most frustrating things for a president is to come in  and realize he can’t fire anybody, except for a precious few who are considered  to be political appointees. He’s up against this bureaucratic wall, in a  way.”

Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer confronts Obama

In April 2010, Arizona adopted an immigration law designed to discourage  illegal aliens from entering the state. The law, known as S.B. 1070, authorized  state police officers to verify a person’s immigration status with federal  authorities and detain individuals suspected of being in the country  illegally.

When the state senate passed the bill, President Obama’s administration  immediately sued and enjoined the state from enforcing portions of the state’s  legislation.

The Constitution does not prohibit states from supporting enforcement of  federal laws. The 10th Amendment states, “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.”

Just one week after it sued Arizona, Obama’s Justice Department said it would  not pursue “sanctuary cities” that openly violate federal law by protecting  illegal aliens.

“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not  going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary  cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively  interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, spokeswoman for Attorney General  Eric Holder, told the Washington  Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”

The Supreme Court  weighed in on the matter in June 2012, rejecting key portions of the Arizona  law but upholding the provision allowing police officers to check immigration  status.

What the experts say …

“The administration is entitled to bring a lawsuit,” Fein said. “Sometimes  they win, sometimes they lose. In fact, in that particular case, that went to  the Supreme Court. There were four issues raised. They prevailed on three and  lost on the fourth. So that’s not an abuse. The Court decided, and the  administration didn’t suggest it was going to flout the Court’s ruling.”

Fisher told WND, “The Supreme Court did sort of a mixed opinion on that. They  didn’t strike down everything Arizona did, but they did allow Arizona some  leeway. The Justice Department said this is ‘quintessentially’ a national power.  Well, if it’s quintessentially a national power, why don’t you do something? It  hasn’t done anything for decade after decade after decade. States have a right  to protect themselves.”

Titus added, “He can file a lawsuit. There’s nothing unconstitutional about  filing a lawsuit. What is unconstitutional about the Obama administration’s  position is that Congress has this plenary power with regard to immigration.  Therefore, it can control the states exercising their power with regard to their  own borders. If you go back and look at history, the states have always been  able to protect their own borders from people coming in and going out.”

Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order

In June 2012, Obama issued an executive order declaring  that illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and  who are younger than 30 would not be deported. They are eligible for a two-year  work permit that can be renewed indefinitely under the program called  Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Arguing that children of illegal aliens “study in our schools, play in our  neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag,” Obama said, “it makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and  purposes, Americans.”

Obama’s executive order mimics some of the provisions in the DREAM Act, which  has failed to pass in Congress.

What the experts say …

“I definitely think it’s a very troublesome precedent because the president  basically said, ‘Listen, even though the statute doesn’t just carve out an  automatic exemption from deportation for this category of individuals, I’m just  going to decide unilaterally that I will not deport them.’ Really?” Fein said. “Could you decide you don’t want to enforce the homicide statute for a certain  category of people as well?

“That seems to me to fall into a serious category of failure to ‘take care  that the laws be faithfully executed.’ It’s one thing, given limited resources  and the number of illegals, to just say, ‘We’ve got limited resources, and as a  matter of practical discussion, we’ve got to look at 1, 2, 3, 4.’ But you still  have an individualized determination. That happens in the U.S. Attorney’s office  all the time when crimes are committed. But just as a wholesale statement: ‘We  just don’t want to enforce the law’?”

“Could the president stand up and say, ‘You know what? I just don’t want to  enforce the Voting Rights Act anymore. It’s just too much of a hassle’?”

However, Fein added, “There are stronger cases for impeachment” than the  executive order blocking deportation of young illegal aliens.

Fisher told WND, “Impeachment? I think it’s a stretch. Reagan did a deal  where 1 or 2 million people illegally here would be made citizens. That was  supposed to be a solution. Now we have something like 12 million. Both parties  are guilty, and the national government is certainly guilty. I was certainly  sympathetic with Arizona trying to cope with this under its own means. There’s a  certain amount of vandalism and crime associated with these rates. States should  be able to protect themselves.”

Titus added, “One of the problems with impeaching President Obama is that  much of what he’s doing, he’s doing because Congress has allowed it or  authorized it. So Congress is not in a position to review Obama’s actions and,  in the House, to charge him with a high crime and misdemeanor. It’s very  difficult.”

Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress

In April 2010, the U.S. Senate rejected the “cap-and-trade” bill, which  created a carbon-tax system and amplified federal power over the energy  industry.

Nonetheless, Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, declared carbon dioxide  a pollutant. Before Congress had voted on the matter, on Dec. 7, 2009, Jackson  signed an “endangerment finding” labeling CO2 and five other gases – methane  (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs)  and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6 ) – threats to human health.

That step provided the EPA with the authority to regulate the gases in the  absence of congressional approval, and the federal agency rolled out new  rules.

What the experts say …

Fein dismissed the idea that Obama should be impeached for his  administration’s actions on cap and trade: “That’s an asinine argument. Yeah, so  what? It’s politics, and if Congress didn’t like it, they can vote to override  the regulation any time.”

Fisher said, “I doubt if the EPA has full authority to act in aggression on  global warming, but I think they have some discretion. I’m sure statutes passed  by Congress on clean air and clean water are on the broad side. The EPA still  has some discretion.”

Titus added, “Who created the EPA? Congress. Who has delegated the power to  make the rules? Congress has delegated what would otherwise be its job to the  EPA. Under the law created by Congress, there are very few standards that would  be enforceable to say the EPA doesn’t have that authority.

“Congress has delegated its lawmaking power to administrative agencies in an  increasing fashion from the time when it first started doing that in the late  19th century. If Congress were to come along now and say, ‘You’re  exceeding your authority,’ the difficulty is that it can’t find anything in the  statute to prove the EPA is going beyond the authority that Congress gave  it.

“Congress could stop this with its appropriations power, or it could pass a  statute and say, ‘You can’t do this.’ Or it could abolish the EPA, which, of  course, Congress would never do. Cap and Trade is hardly an impeachable  offense.”

Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers

After Obama took office, the Department  of Justice dismissed voter intimidation charges against two leaders of the  New Black Panther Party, or NBPP, related to the 2008 presidential  election.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees “due process” and “equal protection of the laws” while the 15th Amendment  guarantees that “the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged … on account of race …”

As WND reported in 2008, two  NBPP members were filmed standing in front of the entrance to a Philadelphia  polling station in black uniforms, with one member wielding a billy club.

According to complaints, both men standing in front of the polling station  pointed at voters and shouted racial slurs, using such phrases as “white devil” and, “You’re about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker!”

Attorney General Eric Holder’s office was accused by Justice Department  insiders of racial favoritism in dropping the charges against the NBPP.

In May 2010, J. Christian Adams resigned as a Justice voting department trial  attorney, citing preferences related to trying civil rights cases only when  minorities were the victims.

“I was told by voting section management that cases are not going to be  brought against black defendants on [behalf] of white victims,” Adams said in  testimony before the Civil Rights commission.

Adams was backed up by Christopher Coates, the former head of the voting  section for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Coates had led  the original investigation of the New Black Panther Party.

Coates stated in testimony, “I had people who told me point-blank that [they]  didn’t come to the voting rights section to sue African-American people.”

What the experts say …

“Dismissing voter intimidation charges? Well, it may be that you have  oversight hearings and you feel that was an uneven administration of the law,” Fein said. “I don’t know that anybody has suggested that there’s been a single  election in which the outcome was affected because there was some irregularity  in the voting process. Again, it’s going for the capillaries. I’m not trying to  exonerate it. We just have to put a level of gravity on this. This is the  capillary, not the jugular.”

Fisher added, “You go after anybody who intimidates voters, regardless of  what their color is. The public looks to government to have some integrity, and  I don’t see any integrity from the Justice Department there. Voter intimidation  is against the law. That’s a basic principle, and you uphold it.”

Titus told WND, “What we have is a double standard. If it’s  a minority who’s concerned about access to the ballot and it fits in one of  those geographic locations that’s covered by the Voting Rights Act, then a  change in the voting law is presumed to be unconstitutional, and you can bet  your boots that the Justice Department is going to be right there on the  doorstep. But when it comes to white people who might be discriminated against  with regard to access to the ballot, they look the other way.

“If there’s anybody who ought to be impeached on that one, it’s Attorney  General Eric Holder. Between that and Fast and Furious, if Congress were to do  its job, it should bring articles of impeachment against Holder and take it to  the Senate for trial.”

Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act

President Obama announced in 2011 that his  administration believed the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, to be  unconstitutional and instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend it in  court.

DOMA, which was passed in 1996 under President Bill Clinton, says states will  not be forced to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states, and  the federal government doesn’t recognize such unions. The Supreme Court is  expected to determine whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution’s  guarantee of equal protection this spring.

The law has been on Obama’s radar for several years; he promised to repeal  DOMA during his 2008 campaign for president.

In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released the following  statement:

“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the  president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented  history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be  subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The president has also  concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex  couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given  that conclusion, the president has instructed the Department not to defend the  statute in such cases. I fully concur with the president’s determination.”

After the Obama administration refused to defend the law, House leaders  instructed the House general counsel to take up the case. Because the Justice  Department won’t be doing it, taxpayers have already paid as much as $1.7  million for the legal work.

Rep. Trent Franks,  R-Ariz. has raised the possibility of impeaching Obama over his refusal to  defend DOMA. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Congress should “confront” Obama, “threatening to zero out” the budget at the Attorney General’s office  until the president decides to defend DOMA.

What the experts say …

“When I served in the Office of Legal Counsel and Deputy Attorney General,  the standard for refusing to defend a federal statute was if it was flagrantly  unconstitutional under prevailing and longstanding Supreme Court rulings,” Fein  told WND. “DOMA does not come close to meeting that exacting standard. Obama’s  refusal to defend it violates his obligation to ‘take care that the laws be  faithfully executed’ imposed by Article II.”

Fisher added, “Decades ago, Congress learned that administrations were not  defending certain statutes. There was a rule that if you decide not to defend  it, you have to tell them. They’ve been doing it ever since. That’s why Holder  wrote the letter saying we’re not going to defend this. I don’t think there’s  any question that the administration can, based on reasoning, announce that they  can’t defend the statute.

“I thought personally the letter from Holder was on the thin side. It would  have been better to have a more substantive document. Maybe the Office of Legal  Counsel could have explained why. I read it, and I thought it was pretty  unimpressive. I don’t object when an administration, based on good reasoning – which I don’t think Holder gave to Boehner – says, ‘We really cannot in good  conscience defend this.’”

Titus told WND, “This is a classic example of the president assuming the  powers of the English king. The English king claimed to have the prerogative to  dispense and suspend the laws. [T]here’s no question that our founders did not  believe that they had delegated the power to the president to suspend or  dispense with the law. They gave him specific power to veto, and that was  limited. And the ‘take care that the law is faithfully executed’ is a kind of  limit upon the power of the president, rather than a broad, sweeping power.

“But this is a difficult one to be a high crime and misdemeanor, primarily  because Obama is not the first president to take the position that he could  suspend a particular law and not fully enforce it. To make this into a high  crime and misdemeanor would be political folly.”

Illegally conducting war against Libya

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives  Congress the power to declare war.

The U.S. launched combat operations in Libya on March 19, 2011. For several  weeks before the U.S. combat operation in Libya, CIA operatives had been  deployed to the area to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and support  Libyan rebels in the overthrow of Gaddafi. The New York Times reported  in March 2011 that Obama had “signed a secret finding authorizing the C.I.A. to  provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels.”

The U.S. military had been reportedly monitoring Libyan troops with U-2 spy  planes, a high-altitude Global Hawk drone and a JSTARS aircraft to track troop  movements.

Fox News’ Mike Huckabee raised the issue of impeachment over Obama’s order to  bomb Libya, stating, “I think frankly, if this issue really gets traction that  it deserves, and let it say it deserves, go back. Richard Nixon was forced out  of office because he lied. And because he covered some stuff up. I will be blunt  and tell you this. Nobody died in Watergate. We have people who are dead because  of this. There are questions to be answered and Americans ought to demand to get  answers.”

As WND  reported in March 2012, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced House  Concurrent Resolution 107, which stated, “[I]t is the sense of Congress that,  except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the  United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior  and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive  power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution  and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under  article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

Jones’ bill had 12 co-sponsors, but it never made it past the House Committee on  the Judiciary.

What the experts say …

“In the case of Libya, the president had no congressional authority  whatsoever,” Fein said. “The whole thing is insane. And the executive doesn’t  care because all the time that conflict ensues, that just means more executive  power. That’s exactly what the Founding Fathers feared.

“President Obama just totally flouted the whole thing and basically said  through his various memos, ‘I don’t need congressional authority to go to war.’ That was clearly an impeachable offense. It’s clearly gross usurpation of the  war power.  Both the Republicans and Democrats have acquiesced in  that.”

Fisher told WND he found Obama’s actions in Libya “constitutionally  offensive.”

“I think it’s completely unconstitutional,” he said. “It’s extremely  offensive for a president to claim he can use military force against another  country, like Libya, that didn’t threaten us. I find that appalling.

“Of course, the Office of Legal Counsel sent out a memo. It claimed there’s  no war because there were no legal casualties. If that’s your legal reasoning,  you could absolutely pulverize another nation. If anyone did anything to us like  what we did to Libya, we’d obviously call it war. That was a complete and total  outrage.”

Titus added, “I think Libya is the strongest argument for impeachment. That’s  the one that stands out. It’s unprecedented. It doesn’t even fit within any of  the precedents that have been set since Korea.

“If you’re going to talk impeachment, you have to find something that Obama  has done that is so distinctly different than what other presidents have done  before him that people can resonate with it. The difficult, of course, is that  people have forgotten about Libya.”

You  asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach Pre...


On Sept. 11, 2012, a U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were  brutally murdered at a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

Just three days after the attack, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney  accused an anti-Muslim video on YouTube of inciting the attack. On Sept. 16,  U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made five television appearances in which she claimed  the attacks were spontaneous reactions to the obscure film. Obama mentioned the  YouTube video six more times at the U.N. on Sept. 25.

However, there was never any kind of protest at the Benghazi compound that  night.


During congressional hearings in January in which Secretary of State Hillary  Clinton finally was questioned about the calamity on her watch, Clinton claimed  she didn’t see a classified State Department cable sent Aug. 16 that said the  Benghazi mission could not defend against a “coordinated attack.”

However, the State Department’s Charlene Lamb reportedly observed the attack  in near real time.

Lt. Col. Tony Schaefer told Fox News that Obama  watched the attack from the situation room: “I hate to say this, according  to my sources, yes, (the president) was one of those in the White House  situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, ‘What did  the president do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?’ He — only he — could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something.”

However, in their testimonies before the Senate Armed Services Committee,  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey  said they only spoke with Obama once during the attack in a phone call. Obama  spent the following day fundraising in Las Vegas.

In response to questions from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Panetta said Obama  didn’t ask about military options or deploying assets.

“He just left that up to us,” Panetta said.

The New York Post confirmed that a U.S. military drone had been relaying  real-time data to Washington, D.C.

After the administration had blamed the YouTube video for sparking the  assault, columnist and pundit Pat Buchanan wrote, “[I]if there was no protest,  who sent Carney out to blame the attack on the protest? And if there was no  protest, who programmed Rice and put her on five separate Sunday talk shows to  attribute the massacre to a protest that never happened?

“If real-time intelligence and U.S. agents at the scene knew it was  premeditated, preplanned terrorism by Sept. 12, who told Rice to deny  specifically on Sept. 16 that the attack was premeditated or preplanned?”

As WND  reported, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., charged that the Obama administration  appears to be covering up a gun-running scheme that fell apart when jihadists  attacked the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

Andrew McCarthy is a former assistant U.S. attorney who served as the lead  prosecutor of the terrorists behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade  Center.

He wrote, “I do think Benghazi could be an impeachable scandal, and I don’t think this is  an extreme position.

“We do not yet have the answers about what happened on September 11 – most  significantly, when did the commander-in-chief learn of the terrorist attack on  the compound and what action did he take to defend Americans who were besieged  for over seven hours under circumstances where there were U.S. military assets  an hour away? We also do not know how the Mohammed movie cover-up was  orchestrated, although the evidence and common sense point to the White House.  With four Americans killed and the nation appallingly misled in the stretch-run  of a presidential campaign, this is a far more consequential matter than those  that led to the Watergate and Lewinsky investigations. A commander-in-chief’s  dereliction of duty and his administration’s intentional lying to the American  people – to say nothing of its overbearing prosecution of the filmmaker in a  transparent effort to shift responsibility to him – would be impeachable  offenses if they are proved.”

Nearly five months after the attack, Americans still have more questions than  answers.

What the experts say …

“Benghazi is an example of the administration being deceitful, but they do  this all the time,” Fein said. “They obviously just proclaimed we defeated  al-Qaida and thought, ‘Do we really want to expose the fact that we’ve got the  return of al-Qaida?’ Those things happen all of the time. It’s like saying when  Bush announced that we had a weapon of mass destruction about the yellowcake  uranium in Nigeria, he should be impeached. It’s wrong, but on the scale of  things, it’s not worth shouting about.

“In my judgment, what’s so ridiculous is that members of Congress were so  busy screaming and yelling about Benghazi, and yet they did nothing when the  president illegally commenced war against Libya – when he created the  conditions that led to Benghazi. They didn’t care anything about that.”

Fein continued, “It had everything to do with the timing of the election. It  had nothing to do with principle. When all of your priorities are solely  political maneuvers, that’s the end of the country.

“Politics is about trying to make the country great and hoping everybody  wins. It’s not the red team and the blue team and the yellow team, where one  team wins and the others lose. That’s what juveniles do and people involved in  games. We have an adolescent mentality in Congress and the White House. There’s  no statesman who will stand up and say, ‘Enough!’”

Fisher said, “People duck responsibility and accountability. It’s just  amazing what’s happened, particularly after 9/11. Obviously the administration  erred in not properly protecting U.S. officials in Benghazi.”

Titus added, “I think that’s one of those kinds of situations where, if  you’re going to impeach anybody, you impeach the secretary of state. The problem  is, she has left office. But I don’t think that prevents the House from  impeaching her. Impeachment carries the penalty of not being allowed to serve in  the future.”

Gun-control executive actions

Just more than six weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre in which 20 children  and six adults were shot and killed by a gunman at an elementary school in  Newtown, Conn., Obama turned his attention to the issue of gun control.

On Jan. 16, Obama surrounded himself with children and signed 23 gun-control “executive actions.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/you-asked-for-it-obama-impeachment/#4zEf...

Views: 214

Tags: The, WND, case, for, growing, impeachment


You need to be a member of 912Communique to add comments!

Join 912Communique

Comment by Gunner Penobscot on February 16, 2013 at 6:46am
  1. "President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents." -- Xavier Lerma Russian columnist for Pravda Source: Obama's Soviet Mistake, Pravda, 19.11.2012
Comment by Susan Nielsen on February 14, 2013 at 10:01pm

Yes, you are right! Tx Lady, communism is not sustainable... look at countries like Denmark...

Comment by Susan Nielsen on February 14, 2013 at 9:59pm

Re-Formers the Truth is We need a win! We need to feel a win to give the energy back to the movement...

I am thinking about reviving the HUAC project...

How about we encourage them to for  an investigative committee...

The House UnAmerican Activities Committee... anyone want to work on this project... I say we get Darrell Issa to head it!

Comment by txlady706 on February 14, 2013 at 7:47pm

@ Denis

I understand your point. However, I disagree with your focus. You focus on the individual. Communists, and Obama is a card carrying one, don't. They have a much broader way of thinking. So, I would like to redirect your focus. It is NOT the individual. They operate as a whole. The Democrat party is a shell or a vessel. It carries the communists and the rest are camo. You see, your focus is distracting to me. You make valid points. They are good points if you only consider each person individually. However, this is NOT what the plan is. The things that Clinton did are big, but not really big individually and this holds true for Obama. Now consider that there have only been two families in the whitehouse for over 20 years? Does no one see the bigger picture. I'm not that old, but I was taught in the Classical style of logic. It is ILLOGICAL to consider that THAT is happenstance. I think that the case CAN be made that the Communist party has infiltrated the government and is conducting a quiet coup. This happened in EVERY Communist country. The people that continue to WANT it are the people that are IN the government. The beauty of the Communist model is that the government is always 2/3 majority and 1/3 of the people are generally, in some form or another, enslaved to the working class. I know these people. They are elitists and very persuasive in their arguments. They keep the FOCUS of the people in one direction while conducting their "forward" agenda behind closed doors. Omissions, bureau of this or that, policy for such and such. The language is the SAME. Here's a great little example of how "same" things are - look at the Putin elections and the slogan that he had going in Russia. See the communists are somewhat old school and think that the little people can't put 2+2 together. Now, look at Obama's slogan - FORWARD. They were the SAME slogan. All the communist countries elections (that had recent elections) were the same. FORWARD. Is THAT a coincidence? NO WAY. Is OBAMA the Communist. No. He's A communist. And they are on the march. The next election may actually bring forth a Republican, but that may be even MORE dangerous. The NAZI's were REPUBLICANS (the conservatives) All Communists are racists. Their RACE is the enlightened PROGRESSIVES. So, maybe it's not RACE that is the issue with them, but rather a culture of elitism. It doesn't matter what they choose to ELEVATE today, it's whatever will put them in the drivers seat. They are OLIGARCHS. They are "GLOBALISTS" (thats a nice word for people without loyalty or country. They would sell their mothers and kill their babies. Ask any of them. They take PRIDE in it. ) But history is not taught in school. This type of history is petrified. Just like the ten commandments. Ancient pieces of stone that, they believe, have no worth and should be discarded and REPLACED. The problem is that Communism is not sustainable. It is ALWAYS replaced with TYRANNY almost as soon as it is DECLARED.


Comment by Denis Byrne on February 14, 2013 at 4:41pm

Gunner says it all.   And I must agree with Suzie on all points....It is not so easy to remove a prez just elected....We conservatives can now depend on the House, the peoples reps, to keep the Obummer from messing up further...Maybe a slight tax increase is needed maybe not....WHAT SURELY IS NEEDED IS AN END TO GOVT WASTE.  pAYOFFS , PORK BARELL ETC NEED TO STOP ONCE AND FOR ALL..   I doubt if Obama will do that but who knows.... He is a lawyer and any lawyer can take either side of an issue....they dont care, just care about where the money comes from... Hey Gunner, is the Penobscot Bldg in Detroit named after any of your forbearers???  If so--great heritage!

Comment by Denis Byrne on February 14, 2013 at 4:32pm

Dear Tx Lady:  Slick willy as I call him did more than what you say...He set a terrible example for the rest of the nation.. He lowered considerably our national moral fabric as people look to leadership...RR never cheated on his wife nor did either Bush...Regardless of their politics, both gave good example while willy did not..But the economy was OK...Yes, for sure, the last elections show a populace moving toward more socialism....We conservatives need to stem the tide.. The big flood tide against us would be MSM with all their mud-slinging against conservatives...The obummer needs to do something much worse than so far in order to be impeached... I watched the Benghazi hearings and can say that /CYA was the order of the day...the cmdr in ch was well protected by the testaments...  I do not see any comparison with Obama to Hitler...Hitler was ten times more intelligent and found out a way to decieve a really decent peoples who had been shafted in WW-1 war reparations and then Weimar Republic...Hitler was all about REVENGE.. What revenge does Obama have???   Is he pee'd because he did not get enuff vacations??  Obama on vacation---that IMO is a good thing for the country.. As much as I dislike the obummer, I dislike McCain his opponent even much more...What a sleazy meally mouth politician is McCain...some war hero who blabbered on to his N.Viet captors...sure he was concerned about his injured leg and they knew his father was high profile admiral in navy....But, nevertheless:  ITS NAME RANK AND SERIAL NUMBER---NOT A BUNCH OF BLABBERMOUTH STUFF...I also fought in Vietnam and very fortunately was not captured or tortured..   I respect McCains ability to fly a fighter plane...I can fly an acrobatic glider and basic single engine Mooney...   Not really all that difficult...It only gets difficult when the pilot is shot down...McCain blew it...He is the one to be impeached IMO...The great US votership had a very sore choice for pres. in 2008...Probably the worst choice ever, IMO..  Obama is doin the best he can and OJT is good... I trust my realestate lawyer, my trust lawyer, may corporate lawyer, but be damed if I trust any lawyer gone into politics...That says to me that he could not make the grade in the real world so he went into politics---LALA ville...

Comment by txlady706 on February 12, 2013 at 2:39pm


I disagree about impeachment.  I agree that Clinton did bad things that were worthy of impeachment.  He underhandedly classified China with a favorite nation status.  This precipitated our current issues with Korea today.  He allowed for a sell of CISCO to China.  The sell of it was stopped by Repubs that said it was a security threat.  The the CHINESE company was allowed to set up shop here and effectively infiltrated our security anyway.  Read this - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57526899/chinese-telecom-gian...

So, yes, he did some impeachable things.

Obama has done the like to the 3rd degree and has done, at least dozens more regarding policy and he's installed a shadow government almost single handed.

Impeachment is the only way to undo what he's done.  But that is not to say that the rest of the things should not be pursued.  I'm an all of the above type of gal.  

I believe that he will call for an all out suspension of the Constitution and install, with out saying the EXACT words, an all out Socialist government.  He will say that it is TIME to move FORWARD with the Change that needs to happen.  And soon, because the interim time is the painful time.  Once the transformation is complete, and everyone has accepted their NEW positions, it will be a much easier time.  

This is the same type of HOPE that HITLER gave - not the same words.  



Comment by Denis Byrne on February 12, 2013 at 1:51pm

There were some even more serious reasons to impeach slick willy clinton but it did not happen.  We had our chance in Nov to get rid of the bum but we did not..  All we can do is to keep our doorsteps clean and somehow come up with a much better conservative leader for 2016...

Comment by Susan Nielsen on February 12, 2013 at 1:09pm


Yes, I was a member and I just finished adding a Group page for this site on the Tea Party Community site...

(personal opinion: it is just another TP site- NOT designed to bring Groups together! which is what we really need! Sounds good-but still this is just another ego driven TP group!)  Most TP sites do have state group options...

Here is our group page


Actually I prefer FreedomWorks for connecting people and we have a group there also


We also have our Facebook page


and Twitter


Check it out...We have all resources in place---Now all we need are folks being active on those pages!

and yes yes yes! Brochures and flyers are a must!!! and while these are far from professional- here is a start!


So we can see what we have to work with- now we just need new Brochures and Flyers for folks! and most importantly we need more Patriots!

Working on one now which will be Democratic platform VS. Communist agenda...

Lots of work to do...

Comment by Karol Hancock on February 12, 2013 at 11:33am

I think flyers and brochures are a good idea.  Am I right that you are thinking we could do this, maybe recruit more to join and get the information out?  I think we could do that also. I truly believe, we have to make the changes at the local levels to make a difference.   I also think we could be posting them on the social networks, which would be great coverage.  Have either of you been to the new "Tea Party Community" yet?  I joined today, they have a great start.  If you haven't, go to www.teapartycommunity.com  and check it out.  I really like that they have sub-sections for each state off of the main page.  I will be interested in what you think.


Is America (already) a Socialist Country?

Posted by Susan Nielsen on January 20, 2015 at 6:30pm — 10 Comments

A Modern Tramp Abroad Part 4 London.

Posted by Hugh Akston on January 19, 2015 at 5:00am — 1 Comment

A Modern Tramp abroad Part 3 Berlin

Posted by Hugh Akston on January 14, 2015 at 5:00am — 1 Comment

A Modern Tramp Abroad part 2 Paris.

Posted by Hugh Akston on January 9, 2015 at 5:00am — 3 Comments

Listen In On The Immigration Discussion LIVE

Each Friday @ 7pm Eastern
Join us on the

This is a member supported website. Please donate and help pay the rent today!

See who's online

Need to contact us?

Shop our own Amazon store and help support TCC

Website assistance is just a click away

This Visitor Globe was added 9/26/13

© 2015   Created by Susan Nielsen.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service