Flashback Friday: Reagan’s Response to Terrorism Stands In STRONG Contrast to Obama’s

Leave a comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

Ronald Reagan was a true leader and an inspiration. 

Barack Obama is a limp wristed Nancy boy.


Both President Reagan and President Obama had to deal with terrorist actions during their time in office, but their responses couldn’t be more different.

After ISIS beheaded several American citizens last summer, Obama said in a press conference:

I have consulted in Congress throughout this process. As our strategy develops we will continue to consult with Congress. But I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.

On April 14, 1986, while announcing air and naval strikes against Muammar al-Qaddafi and the Libyan regime, Reagan was emphatic in his resolve to eliminate any terrorist threat.

Colonel Qadaffi is not only an enemy against the United States….He has sanctioned acts of terror in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East…and for us to ignore by inaction the slaughter of American civilians and American soldiers, whether in nightclubs or in airline terminals, is simply not in the American tradition.

When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world on direct orders of a hostile regime, we will respond so long as I’m in this Oval Office. Self defense is not only our right; it is our duty. It is the purpose behind the mission undertaken tonight, a mission fully consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong.

There should be no place on earth where terrorists can rest and train and perfect their deadly skills. I meant it. I said that we would act with others if possible to ensure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere. Tonight, we have.

The differences don’t end there. The Obama administration has a high bar for what they consider “terrorism,” and the Taliban doesn’t qualify:

The Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. We don’t make concessions to terrorist groups.

That’s an important distinction to remember since the current President actually negotiated with the Taliban to free suspected military deserter Bowe Bergdahl.


Report: As many as 20-30 Gitmo detainees freed within the last few years are now fighting in Syria

1 Comment

This is from Hot Air.

This is a good reason not to take any more prisoners or take prisoners and shooting them trying to escape.


Emphasis on “in Syria.” If you’re looking for the total number of sprung Gitmo alums who’ve returned to the battlefield worldwide, e.g. in Afghanistan, think closer to 200. Presumably that includes some of the Taliban Five whom we handed over for accused deserter Bowe Bergdahl, one member of which vowed to start killing Americans again soon after he was released.

Does the public care about this anymore? Does the White House? Or does the goal of emptying Guantanamo, even if it means sending reinforcements to ISIS, trump all? I recall reading somewhere that Obama and his inner circle were surprised at the amount of backlash after the Bergdahl deal was announced. Since when do Americans get upset about sending jihadis back into the kill zone?

The intelligence offers a mixed picture, and officials say the figures are not exact. But they are certain at least some of the released detainees are fighting with the Islamic State, or ISIS, on the ground inside Syria. Others are believed to be supporting Al Qaeda or the affiliated al-Nusra Front in Syria.

A number of former detainees also have chosen to help these groups from outside the country, financing operations and supporting their propaganda campaigns…

Of the 620 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay, 180 have returned or are suspected to have returned to the battlefield…

[T]hese officials said the former detainees who have joined ISIS in Syria have migrated from the European and African countries which agreed to receive them from the United States.

To repeat: Does the public care about this anymore? Before you say yes, re-read this post written by Ed nearly four years ago about a declassified DNI report that noted recidivism among freed detainees was increasing even at the time. Four years later, Obama felt bold enough to trade five Taliban members, one of whom led an Al Qaeda offensive inside Afghanistan the day before 9/11, for a guy whom witnesses say went AWOL and inspired a search that may have ended in the deaths of several of his fellow soldiers. Americans are inured to releasing dangerous jihadis by now for several reasons, I think. One is that it’s been happening for many years; Bush released plenty himself. Another may be simple fatigue over playing political football with Gitmo. Democrats have been whining for more than a decade about closing the prison and releasing the remaining detainees to the custody of our “allies” in Yemen, etc. At some point, people just get tired of having this argument. And a third reason, I suspect, is exasperation at the sheer volume of violent lunatics running wild in the Middle East right now. It was controversial to free detainees in the first few years after 9/11 because people still believed that Al Qaeda might be destroyed and that that might quiet down the rest of the jihadis in the region, at least for awhile. Thirteen years later, ISIS has its own caliphate, Al Qaeda’s inside Yemen’s capital, and the Taliban is preparing for a resurgence in Afghanistan as NATO withdraws. What’s another 200 guys on the battlefield when you’re staring at a problem like that?

New from CNN, here’s a perfect example of what I mean:

The U.S. intelligence community now believes two key terrorist operatives targeted by the United States in the opening night of attacks in Syria are still alive and could be actively plotting, multiple officials tell CNN.

The operatives are key members of Khorasan Group, the al Qaeda affiliate entrenched in Syria that the United States has declared poses a great risk to American national security. One official with direct knowledge of the latest U.S. assessment said the working assumption now is that both Muhsin al-Fadhli, the leader of the group, and David Drugeon, a French jihadist and key member, who is believed to be a skilled bomb-maker, are alive. The United States does not know with certainty if they are injured.

An intelligence analyst with knowledge of the intelligence tells CNN “its 99.5% certain” they are alive.

We can’t take out the big targets we’re after. Who has time to worry about the smaller ones, who haven’t seen action for a decade or more?

Still, this is newsy if only because it’s something that’ll be on Congress’s menu next year if Republicans retake the Senate next week. They could try to pass something blocking further releases from Gitmo (or further prisoner exchanges); the politics of this are sufficiently in hawks’ favor that they might even get enough Democrats to sign on in the Senate to break Reid-led filibuster. But what reason is there to believe Obama would follow that law? He’d claim it was unconstitutional, an infringement on his powers over war as commander-in-chief, and he’d have a stronger argument in that regard than he does for, say, ignoring ObamaCare deadlines or issuing mass amnesties to illegal immigrants. Congress is probably at his mercy here. If Americans don’t like that, they should have voted for the other guy in 2012. But like I say, at this point, they probably don’t care.

Six Weeks After Controversial Taliban Trade, Sgt. Bergdahl Returning To Active Duty

Leave a comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

Why is it this man is not in the stockade waiting to be court-martialled?

Or at least under house arrest while the investigation is complete.

Sadly, I look for the story will to get pushed out of the headlines by the illegals crossing the border then be forgotten.


Since being released from five years in Taliban captivity six weeks ago, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has undergone debriefings, therapy and counseling at an Army hospital. And now, the Army has deemed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl ready to return to active duty.

He became internationally known after five senior Taliban members were traded for his release, and his time in Afghanistan has been called into question by his former platoon-mates.

But despite the vocal calls for a court martial, Bergdahl will be taking a job at the Army North headquarters at Fort Sam Houston, according to The New York Times.

He is also expected to meet with Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl, the officer who is investigating the circumstances of Sergeant Bergdahl’s disappearance from his outpost in Afghanistan in 2009.

 Sergeant Bergdahl’s transfer from the therapy phase to a regular soldier’s job is part of his reintegration into Army life, officials said. He will live in barracks and have two other soldiers help him adjust.

This move will no doubt raise some questions and possibly from anger from the media and from fellow soldiers. We can only hope the Administration is not brushing the controversial trade under the rug.


New Bergdahl mystery: why haven’t fellow Soldiers been contacted in military investigation?


This is from Allen B. West.

My two cents is the Obama Regime is sweeping this under the rug like everything else.


Last Thursday when I was guest-hosting the Sean Hannity radio show, I asked a rhetorical question, “Where is Bowe Bergdahl?”

As always, when stories fall out of the media frenzy, we tend to forget about them. But I haven’t.

Bergdahl was an American Soldier who deserved to be found. I do not concur with President Obama’s unilateral decision to succumb to the demands of a terrorist organization and return five senior leaders of the Taliban. And I just have to ask, why did it take five years?

Regardless, as reported by Fox News — seemingly the only media organization who stays on top of these stories — “U.S. Army soldiers who were serving with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl when he left his post and wound up in the hands of the Taliban say no one has contacted them, even though military brass are currently conducting a new investigation into the case.”

This sounds very familiar to the IRS targeting scandal where Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a person to investigate who never spoke to any of the plaintiff conservative groups bringing forth the complaint. I suppose that’s how investigations are done in the Obama administration — like everything else — just words, rhetoric, and in the end castigation by Obama and his crony Leftists as “phony scandals.”

Fox says “several soldiers who immediately came forward after Bergdahl was released on May 31, in a swap for five Guantanamo Bay detainees, have accused the 28-year-old Idaho native of deserting. But even though the Army is probing that very charge, investigators have not reached out to at least two former Army sergeants — including the platoon’s leader — who served alongside Bergdahl on June 30, 2009, when he disappeared from his post in eastern Afghanistan’s Paktika province.”

“There’s only a handful of us who were actually there and we haven’t been contacted yet,” former Army Sgt. Evan Buetow told “I don’t really know how in-depth they’re trying to get here. I thought we’d be some of the people they’d call. I think they have their mind made up already on what they want people to know.”

Ok, let’s conduct our own short investigation.

Was Army PFC Bowe Bergdahl at his assigned duty post, in a combat zone, on 30 June, 2009? No.

Did PFC Bergdahl depart his assigned duty post with weapon and sensitive items or where they left on his Forward Operating Base (FOB)? They were left on his FOB.

Did PFC Bergdahl attempt to return to his assigned duty position within 30 days? No, they are rumors that he attempted to escape, but that has yet to be verified.

As articulated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a deserter has no intention of returning to his or her post, while a soldier who goes AWOL intends to rejoin.

As a former Commander, I can attest the cutoff for reclassifying a Soldier from AWOL (Away Without Leave) to desertion is 30 days.

When I was a Battalion Commander at Ft. Hood, we had a Soldier returned to our Battalion who had gone AWOL and was summarily classified as a deserter under the previous Battalion Commander. I will never forget the Soldier’s return as we were preparing to deploy to Iraq. I asked him a simple question: did he want to deploy with us to Iraq or would he prefer charges to be preferred against him?

The Soldier chose to deploy, and he did.

But the case of Army PFC Bowe Bergdahl is rather interesting because I believe there is some undue command influence occurring. Why has the 2010 Pentagon report on the Bergdahl incident not been declassified and made open to the public?

It seems to me there has already been an investigation — and perhaps it explains why the military didn’t continue to pursue Bergdahl’s rescue. There can be no debate that PFC Bergdahl voluntarily left his assigned duty post on the aforementioned day — he deserted his post. Although the New York Times attempted to make him the victim and attacked his unit, no one forced him to walk off that combat outpost, leaving his weapon, body armor, and sensitive items.

Fox reports that “Army officials announced a two-star general, Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl, is conducting a new investigation to examine whether Bergdahl went AWOL or deserted his post. However, the probe won’t begin until Bergdahl’s reintegration process is complete, and Dahl’s recommendations will ultimately be sent to the director of the Army staff, who could then approve or alter them before forwarding to Bergdahl’s commander.”

And who will decide when the “reintegration process” is complete? Funny — there was no reintegration process for former Army Lieutenant Michael Behenna. Oh yeah, he was a bad guy for killing a known al-Qaida operative, Ali Mansur, who was conducting operations in his area.

And why is Bergdahl’s case not being conducted within the chain of command of his original unit, the 25th Infantry Division?

Soldiers like me think things should be simple and explanations not convoluted — unlike legislation in Congress.

Former Army Sgt. Evan Buetow who is now working in law enforcement after leaving the Army in 2012, believes the answer to the key question of the investigation remains unchanged. “I think it’s very clear he deserted his post,” Buetow told “He thought about what he was doing, he mailed some things home, he walked away and we have witnesses who saw him walking away. And if you’re walking away in one of the worst, most dangerous areas of Afghanistan without your weapon and gear, I don’t believe you’re planning on coming back.”

Former Army Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl’s unit, told he has also not been contacted by Army officials since the announcement of the new probe, but acknowledged that sworn statements of nearly every soldier in contact with Bergdahl in 2009 undoubtedly still exist. “I have confidence that they’re going to do what’s right,” Vierkant said. “I just feel this should’ve happened a long time ago and it should’ve been public.”Vierkant vehemently maintains that Bergdahl deserted his unit, taking little more than his notebook, a compass, some water and maybe his camera before walking away.

“The most important factor isn’t necessarily why he did it or what made him do it,” Vierkant said. “The most important factor is that he did do it — for whatever reason. That’s enough in my mind to do a court-martial, bring him up under several different charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

And don’t forget — many of the Soldiers in Bergdahl’s unit were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements – and didn’t come forward until the infamous Rose Garden announcement. It’s also rumored that Benghazi survivors were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. Hmm, doesn’t exactly sound like a phony scandal to me — how about you?


Now the White House says Hagel made final call on Bergdahl as criticism of Obama over prisoner swap mounts

Leave a comment

This is from the U. K. Daily Mail.

Sounds like The Lying King is offering Hagel up as a sacrifice to cover his backside.

Will Little Chuckie Hagel fall quietly on his sword?




  • Congress learned on Monday that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel gave final approval for the prisoner exchange that freed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
  • Last week, Hagel said the swap was a unanimous decision made by senior officials
  • Hagel is expected to defend the prisoner exchange on Wednesday in an appearance before the House Armed Services Committee


FInal approval for the prisoner exchange that freed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was made by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, members of Congress learned on Monday from White House officials.

‘They indicated (it was) Secretary Hagel (who made the final call),’ Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) said after a classified briefing, ABC points out.

‘It was the president of the United States that came out (in the Rose Garden) with the Bergdahls and took all the credit and now that there’s been a little pushback he’s moving away from it and it’s Secretary Hagel?’


Last week, Hagel said the swap was a unanimous decision when speaking to the BBC.

‘It was the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of National Intelligence, Attorney General,’ he said.

‘It was our judgement based on the information that we had that his life, his health were in peril,’ Hagel also told the channel in defense of not giving Congress 30 days’ notice of the plan.

‘Can you imagine if we would have waited or taken the chance of leaks over a 30-day period?’ Hage

Congress was upset to learn on Monday that 80 to 90 people in the Obama administration knew of the exchange – but that no Republicans or Democrats in Congress were told.

‘It strikes me as unfortunate that they could have 80 to 90 people in the administration aware of what was happening and not be able to trust a single Republican or Democrat in the House or the Senate,’ Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), said, Reuters notes.

”There was a sense of anger that members of Congress didn’t know about this,’ Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) said to reporters after the briefing, ABC notes. ‘Obviously, if there is secure information — members of Congress knew about the capture of Osama bin Laden — and yet 80 to 90 staff in the White House knew about this.’

Hagel is expected to defend the prisoner exchange on Wednesday in an appearance before the House Armed Services Committee.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


The Top 8 White House Bergdahl Lies

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.




Joseph Miller is the pen name for a senior Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.

It’s been just over a week since Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was released in exchange for five senior Taliban leaders held in Guantanamo Bay, and so far the Obama administration is averaging nearly a lie a day. Here are the top eight administration claims, laid out and debunked in full.

Lie #1: Bergdahl was very sick

Bergdahl’s health was not rapidly deteriorating, as the administration claimed. Reports have leaked that the only medical problems Bergdahl is suffering from are “gum and skin disorders” associated with poor hygiene.

The video of Sgt. Bergdahl’s handover to American forces that was released by the Taliban shows Sgt. Bergdahl looking relatively healthy. In the tape, he is seen walking into the company of U.S. special operations forces and then climbing into the aircraft without assistance. The video also shows him lucid and communicating with his captors. We know from previous reporting that he was able to write down the letters “SF” with a question mark on paper once inside the helicopter, as a way of asking his rescuers if they were special forces. This proved that his fine motor skills were intact, and that he was aware of his surroundings.

It has also been reported that one of the few exchange between Bergdahl’s rescuers and his captors was a question about his health. The Taliban said he was not sick. Finally, reports from Landsthul Regional Medical Center in Germany state that Sgt. Bergdahl has been in stable condition.

Lie #2: The Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl

To further justify its decision not to inform Congress (in violation of the law), administration officials claimed that there was a threat to kill Bergdahl if details of the prisoner swap were released. But Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has stated that there is no credible information indicating that there was a threat to Berghdal’s life.

Lie #3: The administration informed Congress about the swap

Reports from Capitol Hill have informed us that the administration last discussed the possibility of a prisoner transfer with members of Congress several years ago. At that time, there was bipartisan and bicameral opposition to the idea. The law requires that the administration notify Congress 30 days prior to the release of any detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The administration has admitted that it engaged in negotiations to secure the deal that set Bergdahl free for over a week prior to the swap. During that week, the administration never informed Congress — and only notified congressional leaders after the deal had been reached, after the detainees from Guantanamo were released, and after Berghdal was in American custody.

It appears that the administration chose to willfully violate the law by not informing Congress, as we now know that there was no credible threat to Bergdahl’s life, he wasn’t ill, and the administration was negotiating for over a week with his captors.

Lie #4: The U.S. didn’t negotiate with terrorists

The president’s national security adviser, Ambassador Susan Rice of Benghazi infamy, returned to the Sunday morning talk show circuit last weekend to defend the Obama administration’s decision to release the terrorists. When CNN’s Candy Crowley asked, “Point blank, did the U.S. negotiate with terrorists?” Ambassador Rice said no.

She claimed that by negotiating through the government of Qatar, the United States didn’t negotiate with terrorists. The problem is that the government of Qatar wasn’t holding Sgt. Bergdahl captive — the Haqqani Network was. The Obama administration officially designated the Haqqani Network a terrorist group in 2012.

Lie #5: Berghdal served with honor and distinction

On ABC’s “This Week,” Rice said that Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” By all accounts his service was not honorable, but was in fact distinct: Bergdahl has the distinction of being the only American soldier to desert his post in Afghanistan and walk into the arms of the enemy.

Statements about him being a traitor, however, are premature. There is not yet a clear indication as to why he deserted his post, or if he aided the enemy. Claims that he trained the Taliban in explosives are hard to believe, because as a private first class infantryman in the Army, Bergdahl would have had little to no explosives training other than basic familiarization, which every soldier receives.

But there is plenty of reason to be plenty suspicious. It’s been said that Bergdahl mailed home his personal items two weeks before he walked off his post — something completely abnormal in a combat zone. It has also been said that he left behind his weapon, body armor and helmet, only taking a compass with him. Additionally, reports in the press stated that Afghan villagers have said Bergdahl wandered around asking to meet with Taliban.

Only time will tell if these claims are true, but it is becoming pretty clear based on the testimony of his former platoon mates, and the Army’s preliminary investigation into the incident, that Bergdahl did in fact desert his post.


Lie #6: The release of the terrorists poses little to no risk to the U.S.

Just days after being released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba family members of one of the five detainees released by the United States told NBC news that the former Taliban commander, Mullah Norullah Nori, planned to return to the fight in Afghanistan. Nori is a former Taliban Provincial Governor and is said to be responsible for the Shia Muslim genocide in Western Afghanistan prior to 9/11. The attacks he ordered against his own countrymen resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians who were slaughtered for practicing a different form of Islam than the Taliban.

Lie #7: The five terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay will be under U.S. monitoring

U.S. officials have publicly stated that the United States will be actively monitoring the released terrorists while they remain in Qatar for one year. The administration claimed that the terrorists would remain in Qatari custody for at least one year before being permitted to travel outside that country. Qatari government officials, however, said that the deal that was reached did not allow for U.S. monitoring of the detainees, and that they would be free to move about the country while they remained in Qatar.

The Qataris did say that they would be monitoring the detainees while they remained as guests in their country. This is not comforting, though, because Qatar has failed to do so at least twice in the past — despite guarantees made to the U.S. government.

In 1996, the United States believed that Qatari intelligence officials were monitoring the movements of Khalid Sheik Mohammad while he was in their country. He was able to evade their monitoring efforts and went on to mastermind the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Another terrorist the Qataris were supposed to be watching after his release from Guantanamo Bay Cuba, Jarallah al-Marri, also managed to leave Qatar and was arrested in London in 2009.

Lie #8: This was the “last, best chance” to bring Bergdahl home

I don’t know what crystal ball the administration was using to make this claim, but there is no indication that this is true.

To date, the Taliban have failed to engage in any meaningful peace talks with the U.S. or the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban have said that they will not negotiate as long as foreign troops remain in Afghanistan. With the U.S. and her coalition allies scheduled to leave Afghanistan at the end of this year, it is quite plausible that resolving the status of Bergdahl and the five terrorists that were just released from Guantanamo Bay could have helped secure a larger peace agreement. That is pure speculation, but is no more speculative than the administration’s claim that this was the last, best chance to secure Bergdahl’s release. What is their speculation based on?

Bergdahl was release May 31. In the days since, the administration has pushed the narrative that he was ill; his life was threatened; Congress was informed; this was not a negotiation with terrorists; he served with honor and distinction; the released Taliban leaders are not a threat; the Gitmo Five will be monitored by the U.S.; and this was the “last, best chance” to bring Bergdahl home. Every single one of these statements has been shown to be false — to be a lie.

Read more:

DENNIS MILLER: “It Seems Like Common Sense Is Heresy Now”

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

Dennis Miller tells it like it is and should be.

Hanoi Jane Fonda should have been shot for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Dennis Miller opens up a can of a whup ass against Bergdahl, Jane Fonda and liberal lunacy like only Miller can.  Turn your speakers up and enjoy.


5 High Crimes And Misdemeanors For Which Obama Deserves To Be Impeached

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

I would love to see Obama impeached and take the perp walk.

But in reality it will never happen as the DemocRats will circle the wagons to save the first black president even though he is a failure.



Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House has been one of the low points in the history of our republic. It may seem melodramatic to compare the damage Barack Obama is doing to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the White House being burned during the war of 1812, but in a sense he’s worse than any of those calamities because he’s a purely self-inflicted wound. It’s not a sneak attack from the Japanese laying us low this time; it’s the man our nation willingly chose to lead us not once, but twice.

It’s bad enough that Barack Obama is not qualified or competent to handle a job like the presidency, as his performance has proven again and again. Not only has he ridden the economy so deep into the ground that the percentage of Americans not working is at a 36 year high, he’s piled on so much debt in such a short period that the destruction of our economy via bankruptcy and/or runaway inflation may be inevitable at this point.

Worse yet, Barack Obama has taken the position that he can rewrite any law he chooses, any way he chooses, for any reason he chooses. In other words, although Obama is not a dictator, he IS CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE DICTATORIAL POWERS for himself. This is extraordinarily dangerous to our republic. As Congressman Trey Gowdy has pointed out, if Obama claims he has the power to change Obamacare or illegal immigration law at his whim, why couldn’t he do the same with election law? In other words, Obama has no more right to give illegal aliens work permits or delay congressionally mandated parts of Obamacare than he does to ban handguns by decree or reduce the number of electoral votes in Republican leaning states. That’s why it’s so incredibly dangerous to allow Obama to be “above the law.” It’s because the abuses committed tomorrow by Obama or even future Presidents are likely to build upon the ones that we’re allowing to go unchallenged today.

The best way to check Barack Obama’s power would be to impeach him. Despite the fact that Obama is much more deserving of impeachment than Clinton (perjury) or Andrew Johnson (who violated the Tenure of Office Act), it’s unlikely that Obama will be impeached. Unfortunately, even if Republicans take back the Senate in 2014, there won’t be enough votes in the upper chamber to get rid of Barack Obama. That’s tragic, because for the good of the country, Barack Obama deserves to be driven from office in disgrace.

1) For Illegally Changing Obamacare: It doesn’t matter if the Affordable Care Act is called “Obamacare;” Barack Obama doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the law. Changes to the law have to be made by Congress and then signed into law by the President. Barack Obama has broken the law repeatedly by making at least 23 unilateral changes to the law. Saying, “The Republicans won’t work with us,” or more disturbingly, “It’s politically convenient,” is not an excuse for overriding the Constitution of the United States.

2) Engaging In An Illegal War In Libya: While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, the Constitution gives Congress the ability to declare war. In the modern era, that has just meant an authorization of force from Congress, which Obama did not pursue. Additionally, we’ve tended to give Presidents the benefit of the doubt when American lives are at stake. However, in Libya, Obama didn’t seek the permission of Congress and we had no national security interest in Libya. In other words, Obama’s real justification for bombing that country and overthrowing its government was that HE FELT LIKE IT. Using the exact same precedent, the next President could bomb Mexico or Cuba without Congressional authorization. Incidentally, bombing either of those nations would probably make more sense than bombing Libya, although that’s not saying much since our intervention there has been a complete disaster.

3) Lying To Sell Obamacare To The American People: When Barack Obama told the public if they liked their plan, they could keep their plan, he was lying. When he told Americans if they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor, he knew it wasn’t so. When he told Americans Obamacare would cut costs by $2,500 for the average family, he was deliberately misleading the public. For a President of the United States to PERSONALLY spend months telling deliberate falsehoods to the American people in order to convince them to support something as massive as a government takeover of the health care system is beyond the pale. If the willful lies Barack Obama told to sell Obamacare don’t merit impeachment, then there are no lies that a President could tell to the American people big enough to merit impeachment.

4) Violating Immigration Law And Illegally Implementing The DREAM ACT: Simply put, Barack Obama has ceased to enforce most immigration law. As Senator Jeff Sessions has noted“at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.” In other words, we’ve already stopped deporting anyone other than SOME hardcore criminals and gang members. Additionally, when the DREAM ACT didn’t make it through Congress, Obama simply implemented it ANYWAY. Not only is he explicitly telling illegal aliens they can stay in the United States, he’s illegally giving them work permits that he has zero right to offer. Even if Congress is too split on the issue to unify and put a stop to what Obama’s doing, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s flatly illegal. If this is allowed to stand, tell me ANY LAW on the books that the President is obligated to enforce?

5) Releasing 5 Taliban Terrorists In Exchange For Deserter Bowe Bergdahl: Barack Obama was legally required to alert Congress 30 days before he released terrorists from Gitmo. Not only did he fail to do so, but more seriously he released five high level terrorists who he knew were likely to help kill Americans in the future. One of the terrorists has ALREADY SAID he intends to go back to Afghanistan to fight America. Barack Obama spent a lot of time bragging about getting Bin Laden, but he just released five Bin Ladens back into the world and a lot of Americans who didn’t desert their country are likely to die because of it.

%d bloggers like this: