The Case in Removing Obama from Office

 

When Congress returns from its August recess, lawmakers will have new reading material awaiting them, much like students returning to school — only this book will detail a case for impeaching President Barack Obama.

”Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office” is a new book coauthored by journalist and WABC radio host Aaron Klein and blogger Brenda Elliott, and they, along with some members of Congress, are trying to make sure that every member has an opportunity to read the book — even going so far as hand delivering them.

“We plan to be working with a member of Congress who likes the book and has agreed to allow his/her office to serve as a conduit distribution source,” Klein told POLITICO in an email. “[The] publishing firm will be physically bringing the books in as soon as Congress returns and we provide the labor to take them from office to office — hand-delivering them to aides and members.”

Klein declined to name those members of Congress with whom he’ll work to distribute the book, but did say that the idea is growing both inside and out of Congress.

Just last week Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) suggested at a town hall meeting that the House had enough votes to impeach Obama. The idea caught on when, this past Monday, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.) told constituents at yet another town hall meeting that it would be a “dream come true” if he could write and submit the bill to impeach Obama. On Wednesday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said that Obama was “getting perilously close” to the Constitutional standard for impeachment, according to Tulsa World.

“We are seeing the impeachment effort snowball more and more every week. It’s possible the comments from Reps. Bentivolio and Farenthold represent the opening of a wider movement, both inside Congress and outside,” Klein said.

Read More: Politico

So what does the Muslim Brotherhood have on Obama?

and Why is McCain doing his dirty work?

 

The son of a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt is claiming his father has evidence that will land President Obama in prison.

The claim came as the Obama administration, with the assistance of Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and the open involvement of the No. 2 man at the U.S. State Department, made a concerted effort to see Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt released.
In an interview with the News Agency Anatolia in Turkey, Saad Al-Shater, the son of imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat Al-Shater, said his father “had in his hand” evidence that will put Obama in prison.
In a thinly veiled threat, Saad Al-Shater said a U.S. delegation was sent to Cairo by Obama to press for the release of the imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood leaders, including his father to prevent the release of explosive information.
Arabic-speaking former PLO member Walid Shoebat has translated the report by the Turkish News Agency Anatolia as follows:

In an interview with the Anatolia News Agency, Saad Al-Shater, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader, the detained Khairat Al-Shater, said that his father had in his hand evidence that will land the head of United States of America, President Obama, in prison. He stressed that the senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt, knows full well that the fate, future, interests and reputation of their country is in the hands of his father, and they know that he owns the information, documents and recordings that incriminate and would condemn their country. Such documents, he says, were placed in the hands of people who were entrusted inside and outside Egypt, and that the release of his father is the only way for them to prevent a great catastrophe. He stated that a warning was sent threatening to show how the U.S. administration was directly connected. The evidence was sent through intermediaries which caused them to change their attitude and corrected their position, and that they have taken serious steps to prove good faith. Saad also said that his father’s safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mohamed Morsi.

Read More: WND

Rand Paul takes on King Obama

 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave an interview to the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he rather strongly denounced President Obama’s threats to impose gun control through executive orders.  ”I’m against having a king,” said the Senator.  

”I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over, and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that’s someone who wants to act like a king or monarch.”

Was Benghazi a Hostage Taking Gone Wrong?

 

by Kevin DuJan / Hill Buzz

Kevin Dulan accuses the Obama administration of deliberately attempting to stage a hostage-taking in Benghazi as part of a manufactured “October Surprise” that Obama intended to make himself look great on the foreign stage in the lead up to the election.  The plan — if you were paying attention — was set in motion at the Democrats’ convention in Charlotte in early September when repeated mentions of Obama as a “foreign policy president” were made.  This was timed to lead up to September 11th…when deliberately lowered security at the Benghazi consulate (and OTHER consulates and embassies in the Mideast) was supposed to encourage Muslims to take Americans hostage like they did in 1979.  Only, Obama’s plan was to negotiate their quick released by trading the “Blind Sheik” from the 1993 World Trade Center bombings for any Americans taken hostage on 9/11/2012.

 

The plan was to make Obama look like “a badass” and a to have him revel in this through October and into the November election.  In fact, the hostages were probably planned for release not long before the Foreign Policy Debate (the last of the three presidential debates this year) in Boca Raton, Florida.  This was supposed to show Obama standing up to Muslims, negotiating “peace”, and proving to the world what an effective and strong leader he was.
Only…it blew up in his face and the administration has been in overdrive trying to cover this stuff up ever since.

The only way any of this makes any sense, including the deliberate lowering of security and the disregard of Ambassador Chris Steven’s multiple pleas for help on the ground in Libya in the weeks prior to his murder, is that Barack Obama WANTED a hostage situation to happen so he could “look presidential by resolving it in October”… but the Muslims in Libya went overboard and killed people instead of just taking them hostage.
This also explains why no effort was made to even look for the Ambassador and others missing from the consulate for many hours:  Obama’s gang just assumed he was taken hostage as planned and were STUNNED to learn the ambassador was murdered.

Why else would Obama go to sleep so casually at 3am that night if he didn’t think things were just going according to plan…but when he woke up at 11am the next day he found that all Hell broke loose instead.

And then the coverup began.

Read More: Hill Buzz

Obama Benghazi Fail Cartoons