The Case For Obama’s Impeachment

Dear All,

The article below includes an incredibly long list of reasons why Obama should be impeached, and it is well known that there are several more reasons not included on the list; such as his decision to intentionally defy the Federal Controlled Substance Act and the UN Treaties on Drugs that America is legally obligated to enforce by International Law. 

Additionally, there have been several persons who are current and formers members of the United Nations that have appealed to the President to fully enforce the Drug Treaties which has fallen on deaf ears. 

America has also witnessed the overwhelming majority of  former ONDCP Directors (Office of National Drug Control Policy) and past DEA Administrators (Drug Enforcement Administration) ask the president to strongly defend the Federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA) and like the United Nations,  their concerns also fell on deaf ears.

Should both houses of the US Congress be controlled by the Republicans after the November, 2014 ballot, Americans ought to expect the Drum Roll to Impeach President Obama quickly grow louder with each passing day.

Ron Kirkish, CDFC/IFBC/CALM

 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

The Case For Obama’s Impeachment

http://personalliberty.com/case-obamas-impeachment/

June 9, 2014 by Bob Livingston 

There is clear and convincing evidence that President Barack Obama has on numerous occasions willfully committed treason and high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

The “crimes” that led to the impeachment of both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and the resignation of Richard Nixon pale in comparison to Obama’s. Johnson’s “crimes” were purely political.

He favored a policy of benevolent reconciliation with the Southern States following the Civil War.

He issued a series of proclamations that directed the Southern States to hold conventions and elections to reform their governments; he attempted to veto a number of bills establishing military districts to oversee the new State governments; he vetoed an incumbent protection act called the Tenure of Office Act; and he fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who was working against him at every turn.

Those moves were all contrary to the wishes of the Republicans who controlled both houses of Congress in the aftermath of the war.

The impeachment vote in the Senate failed by one vote on all three counts to receive the two-thirds majority necessary to remove Johnson from office.

Clinton was impeached for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit and the related independent counsel’s investigation in the Monica Lewinsky affair and various other Clinton misdeeds.

Forty-five Senators—all of them Republican—voted to remove Clinton from office over the perjury charge.

Fifty voted to remove him for obstruction of justice.

Though Clinton was clearly guilty, not one Democrat in the Senate voted to impeach.

And, in fact, the Senate voted 100-0 to not hear any live witnesses in the trial.

Nixon, of course, resigned a couple of weeks after the House opened its impeachment hearings over his role in the cover-up of the Watergate break-in and other allegations of his misuse of office, the facts of which were just coming to light at the time.

The “I-word” hit the mainstream media after war-loving, chicken hawk and John McCain-lapdog Senator Lindsey Graham warned Obama that Republicans would call for his impeachment if he released more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without Congressional approval.

Before that, anyone mentioning impeachment was shouted down and cast by the media and the establishment as nutty, kooky or… wait for it… a conspiracy theorist.

Obama responded to Graham’s threat by having his underlings release news that another Gitmo prisoner may soon be sprung.

I am under no illusion that the impeachment proceedings are in the offing, regardless of what Obama does.

Neither is Obama.

Graham’s threat was as idle as an inattentive parent’s threat to a misbehaving child.

When you hear a parent tell his child “No” over and over, and then hear him say, “You do that once more and you’re in trouble,” you know that child is never disciplined — and the child knows it, too.

This is Congress and Obama.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats in Washington, D.C., are interested in anything other paying lip service to the Constitution while solidifying their respective grips on power and transferring America’s wealth to their favored crony partners.

That is all that matters in D.C. Neither party will intentionally do anything to upset their cushy apple cart.

And the MSM, which long ago abandoned any pretense at objective journalism, are beholden to the elites and in the tank for the regime, drunk as they are on being next to the power structure.

You can’t expect real journalism with a lineup like this:

• ABC Senior Correspondent Claire Shipman is married to outgoing White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
• CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
• CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of top Obama official Ben Rhodes, who is responsible for rewriting the Benghazi talking points.
• ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama special adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.

However, six years of this lawless regime is more than any sane person should be expected to endure.

Even leftist legal scholar Jonathan Turley called Obama “the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”

So here are my articles of impeachment — in no particular order — for the undocumented usurper currently despoiling the People’s House: Barack Hussein Obama.

• He provided aid and comfort to the enemy by releasing five suspected terrorists and former members of the Taliban who participated in or orchestrated attacks against Americans.
• He violated a law he signed six months prior requiring him to notify Congress 30 days before releasing GITMO detainees.
• He has willfully and repeated violated Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by continuously amending the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
• He knowingly and willfully violated Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution by signing the ACA, knowing full well it was a bill for raising revenue that had originated in the Senate.
• He engaged in fraud by repeatedly lying to the American people about the effects of the ACA by claiming that Americans could keep their current coverage and physicians if they chose.
• He exercised an abuse of power by instructing, through his proxies, agents of the Internal Revenue Service to target conservative organizations and his critics for extra scrutiny and audits.
• He participated in an obstruction of justice and a criminal conspiracy by hindering a Congressional investigation into the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal and using Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice in that obstruction.
• He provided aid and comfort to the enemy by ordering or allowing the sale of arms and ammunition to al-Qaida-linked terrorists in Syria and by dispatching agents of the government to advise and train in the use of the those weapons and in military tactics.
• He failed, despite repeated requests by the U.S. Consulate, to provide the security necessary to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel and the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
• He knowingly and willfully denied military assistance to Americans under attack at the Benghazi Consulate, resulting in the trashing of the U.S. Consulate building, the theft of sensitive documents and the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
• He knowingly and willfully lied and ordered his proxies to lie about the circumstances surrounding the attack on the U.S Consulate in Benghazi, thereby perpetrating a fraud on the American people in order to ensure his re-election and to cover up his illegal gun running operation.
• He violated the War Powers Act by failing to gain Congressional approval for the military attack on Libya that resulted in the overthrow of the Libyan regime.
• He provided aid and comfort to the enemy by using the American military and intelligence organizations and allowing the sale of arms and ammunition to al-Qaida-linked terrorists in order to assist them in overthrowing a legal regime in Libya that Congress had not declared war upon.
• He has repeatedly made war on various Middle Eastern countries with the use of drone attacks without the approval of Congress in violation of the War Powers Act and in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
• He has ordered the murders of at least three American citizens without due process in violation of Amendments 5, 6, 8 and 14.
• He has repeatedly used the Environmental Protection Agency to contravene Congress and pass laws harmful to American businesses and consumers, in violation of Article I, Section 1.
• He has repeatedly violated the 4^th Amendment by allowing agencies under his direction to continue to spy upon, wiretap and collect personal information of American citizens who are not criminal suspects.
• He has repeatedly violated Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution by disregarding laws passed by Congress, including, but not limited to, U.S. immigration laws, civil rights laws and the Defense of Marriage Act.
• He knowingly allowed the illegal sale of weapons to Mexican narco-terrorists that were later used to kill Americans, including border agent Brian Terry.
• He obstructed justice by participating with Attorney General Holder in a cover-up of the Fast and Furious gun running scheme.
• He knowingly and willfully violated Article IV, Section 4 by failing to protect the border States against invasion, and in fact encouraged that invasion through his rhetoric and with the use of executive orders that contravened U.S. immigration law.
• He knowingly and willfully violated Article IV, Section 4 (guaranteeing a republican form of government to each State) by strong-arming, intimidating and threatening to withhold funds from the States of Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Rhode Island and Arizona in order to coerce the people and legislatures of those States and prevent the passage of laws according to the citizen’s wishes.
• He instructed his Interior Secretary to ignore the orders of Federal courts to lift a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which denied oil workers an opportunity to earn a living and damaged the U.S. economy.
• He broke established precedent and contravened established bankruptcy law, to the detriment of the bond holders and the advantage of his campaign contributors (auto unions) in the General Motors bailout.
• In the auto bailout, he knowingly and willfully deprived numerous auto dealers of their dealerships for political reasons in violation of Amendments 4 and 14.
• He repeatedly transferred funds from the U.S. Treasury to his cronies and campaign contributors for use in failing green energy schemes.
• He violated Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution by appointing officers without first obtaining the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

In his book Faithless Execution, Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, Andrew C. McCarthy notes: “Impeachment is a grave remedy on the order of a nuclear strike.” Obama’s lawless Presidency has been nothing less than a nuclear strike on the U.S. Constitution, which now lies in tatters.

“Impeachment is a political remedy: even if palpably guilty of profound transgressions, a president will not be ousted without a groundswell of public ire,” McCarthy writes.

In his case for impeachment, McCarthy breaks Obama’s high crimes and misdemeanors into seven articles. They are:

• Article I: The President’s willful refusal to execute the laws faithfully and usurpation of the legislative authority of Congress.
• Article II: Usurping the Constitutional authority and prerogatives of Congress.
• Article III: Dereliction of Duty as President and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
• Article IV: Fraud on the American People.
• Article V: Failure to execute the Immigration Laws faithfully.
• Article VI: Failure to execute the laws faithfully: Department of Justice.
• Article VII: Willfully undermining the Constitutional rights of the American people that he is sworn to preserve, protect and defend.

Those articles contain many of the charges laid out above.

But they also include Obama’s defiance of Congressional law and court orders in:

 

§  obstructing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project,

§  his defiance of Federal law requiring him to address Medicare insolvency,

§  his undermining of and contempt for Congress’ duty to conduct oversight of Federal agencies,

§  his dereliction of duty by imposing unconscionable rules of engagement that endanger American troops,

§  lying about Iran negotiations and assisting that country with its nuclear program,

§  politicization of the DoJ, politically motivated selective prosecution by the DoJ,

§  DoJ investigations and other intimidation of journalists in violation of Amendment 1,

§  systematic stonewalling of Congress,

§  abridgement of Amendment 1 in appeasing Islamic supremacists by adopting repressive sharia blasphemy standards, suppression of information about Islamic terrorism,

§  including its occurrence at Ft. Hood, abridgement of Amendment 1 by vindictively targeting and prosecuting high-profile critics,

§  and his abridgement of Amendment 2 by joining an international treaty despite Congressional opposition.

McCarthy notes that since impeachment is a political rather than a legal remedy, the burden of proof is different.

But he also states that as long as there is no groundswell of opposition to the President’s actions from the public, there will be no impeachment.

I’ll go one step further: As long as there is not a two-thirds majority of Republicans in the Senate, there will be no impeachment.

But even in the off chance that Republicans were to somehow come up with 66 Senators willing to remove the President, the Republicans would not have the stomach to attempt it because the sycophantic media would gin impeachment up as a racial issue and stir up street riots that would make Watts riots look like a park stroll.

The ensuing carnage would likely result in the removal of the entire power structure in Washington.

And the establishment — whether it sides with the Democrats or Republicans — will agree it can’t have that.

 

Medical marijuana: No proven clinical value

Miami Herald, By David Murray, Thursday, June 12, 2014 

David Murray was chief scientist at the White House, Office of National Drug Control Policy and is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Substance Abuse Policy Research.



 

 

 

 

 

In a recent poll conducted for the Miami Herald, 54 percent of the Miami-Dade County respondents said they support legalization of medical marijuana.

 

Trailing not far behind, 46 percent opposed it — a surprisingly high number given the one-sided nature of the well-funded pro-legalization campaign that has dominated local discussion on the issue.

 

But while the voices of residents and legislators are being heard, one crucial group has been left out of a debate — the scientific community that is assessing marijuana’s efficacy as a medical treatment.

 

What does this community have to say about marijuana being sold at dispensaries before it is proven effective through the FDA’s drug approval process?

 

According to a recent study by Yale Medical School published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in May, there are very real risks associated with treating marijuana as a medical treatment, including structural brain damage, an irreversible lowering of the IQ, respiratory damage and increased risk of psychotic disorders.  

 

Furthermore, the report states “Medical marijuana differs significantly from other prescription medications.

 

Evidence supporting its efficacy . . . relies largely on testimonials instead of adequately powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials . . . and in general falls short of the standards required for approval of other drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”

 

Miami-Dade’s residents and legislators invariably hear that marijuana dispensaries are compassionate services for those afflicted by such serious diseases as cancer or HIV/AIDS, for whom it is said no other “medicine” suffices, justifying their use of an intoxicating smoked weed.

 

However, only 3 percent of those using marijuana dispensaries suffer from cancer or HIV/AIDS, according to a recent RAND study that examined participants in California.

 

Who actually uses these facilities?

 

Participants in the study found them to be overwhelmingly male (73 percent), substantially unemployed (31 percent), largely reporting “chronic pain” (58 percent) as their medical condition (nearly half of them already having a prescription for opiates), with another 44 percent reporting either a mental or sleep disorder as their reason for needing marijuana.

 

To date, there is no compelling clinical need for what smoked marijuana purports to do; the medical conditions for which it might be applied are already treated by non-marijuana medicines that have been found safe, effective and without risk of abuse.

 

The risk to young people is great, and scientific evidence continues to mount.

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine by the director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse sums up the known adverse effects of marijuana smoking, with considerable stress on the dangers of adolescent exposure.

 

Modern medicines are a product of medical research, using scientific methods.

 

Medicines are not made by agenda-driven legislators or well-meaning crowds by a show of hands.

 

Medicine is not wish-fulfillment, able to turn an intoxicating folk-remedy into a healthy medical compound by clicking ones’ heels.

 

Medicine is determined by controlled results.

 

Most importantly, when it comes to acceptance, science has the only vote that matters.

 

Marijuana is a Schedule I Controlled Substance — a dangerous substance with no recognized medical use — for a reason.

 

It has not completed the course of proof required of all legal medicines sold in the United States.

 

Until rigorous clinical trials can demonstrate therapeutic efficacy sufficient to outweigh its risks, marijuana will remain such, as the FDA reiterated in 2006.

 

Let the research go forward, but not by abandoning standards.

 

 

Lessons on Congressional Oversight – For Benghazi

Robert "Bobby" Charles

Townhall, Robert Charles | Jun 10, 2014

Congress is about to commence the Benghazi Oversight Hearings, a step in the right direction for the cause of “truth, justice and the American Way.” 

That said, a note of caution is in order, especially for those of us who wish to see this inquiry end in success – that is, to fully serve the larger purposes of informing the American People about what happened, because it really does matter.

Twenty-one years ago, a 51-day stand-off between a religious cult and federal law enforcement officials ended in the tragic deaths, most by burning and asphyxiation, of 76 adults and children living in a complex near Waco, Texas.

The national uproar over what was viewed as a horrific, seemingly avoidable series of deaths, the murky circumstances surrounding the fire, the risky Federal gas assault on the compound (authorized by then-Attorney General Janet Reno), and the role of the Clinton White House was considerable.

The Nation was stunned, horrified, heart sick. Congressional hearings were needed.

In some ways, the uproar over events at Waco was commensurate with the one surrounding events at Benghazi.

 There were questions of misguided leadership, failed preparation, ungrounded assumptions, profound errors in judgment, suspect motivations, internal fights within a beleaguered administration concerned for re-election, operational mismanagement, even layers of possible conspiracy.

 To address these persistent national concerns, leadership in Congress created a joint committee, this one commissioned to conduct a thorough-going investigation and hold what would be known as “The Waco Hearings.”

 Movies would be made about the event, and hearings. Books would be written, and three volumes of testimony would be published, each one the length of Tolstoy’s tome, War and Peace.

Nineteen years ago, on the heels of that national tragedy, I was one of two congressional staffers assigned to run those hearings.

 To do so, we needed to structure the investigation, draft rolling document requests, interrogatories and letters to Federal agencies, conduct seemingly endless interviews, issue multiple subpoenas, assign roles, coordinate what was learned, and shape what would eventually become an eight-day, 97-witness series of high-profile hearings, covered gavel-to-gavel by C-SPAN and CNN.

What did I learn? A lot, and most of it on the fly.

 So, as Congress prepares for another flaps down, wheels up, after-burners on, set of rough-and-tumble hearings, a few lessons come back.

 First, these hearings need to be overtly non-political, highly credible, intensely methodical, and as dispassionate as possible.

 That is a tall order, especially with passions running high on both sides, but if the goal is truth, this is the only way.

 Moreover, if credibility is lost, if the object appears preemptive judgment, the hearings will backfire – that is, they may never find truth and may permit theater to trump honest inquiry.

Second, the hearings must be repeatedly, unfailingly and with discipline, focused on just one set of pre-identified, critical and positively illuminating questions.

 Wandering off topic, pontificating, dragging side issues in which, while valid are not relevant, will only confuse, disrupt and ultimately sideline the hearings.

 The airspeed needed for truth can only be achieved with early and intentional streamlining.

Third, as a former litigator and US Court of Appeals clerk, I mistakenly thought Congressional hearings would be governed by the same rules one finds in a courtroom.

 They are not.

 They are subject to high political cross-winds, which can be perilous to truth-finding.

 One day a member of Congress who wished to distract from that day’s topic appeared with a gun case, suddenly flinging it open and wielding an AK-47 for the cameras.

 Another member then brought a grenade casing. On another day, a witness was proffered – and very effectively – by the minority, for the sole purpose of showing about an hour of raw emotion.

 That was the nightly story.

 Theater triumphed; truth was set-back.

These events were recurring.

 State law enforcement witnesses, to whom we had issued “friendly subpoenas” to allow them to testify, called to say they had gotten calls telling them not to honor the subpoenas, because they were not hand delivered.

 This was absurd.

 Relying on the legal profession’s Canons of Ethics, I sought to get such a flagrant interference with another party’s witnesses corrected, only to learn that, for purposes of the law, “Congress is considered one party,” thus anything goes.

That was not the worst.

 Members themselves played games, despite the serious nature of the inquiry.

Cross examinations were interrupted with frivolous rule challenges, scenes were thrown, witnesses were coached, statements made to obscure the facts and obfuscate the record.

 Documents were withheld by the White House, or mysteriously went missing, excuses were proposed for behaviors that were impermissible, only to elicit equally embarrassing counter-assertions.

 In short, craven politics created intentional misdirection, complicating the often – rightly – boring pursuit of truth.

So, how can the emerging committee avoid these mistakes?

US Congressman Trey Gowdy

 Here are a few pointers.

 First, drop the traditional five-minute rule, in favor of a minimum fifteen-minute rule for questions.

 Why?

 Because no cross examination can be developed in five minutes.

If you must abide a five-minute rule, get time ceded from non-litigators on the committee the most seasoned litigator to provide a sizable block.

Second, in the same vein, get majority concurrence to have these cross examinations conducted in one-party blocks, say 15 to 30 minutes by the majority, then equal time for the minority.

Third, authorize the committee counsel to conduct inquiries, often done in Senate investigative hearings, thus removing an element of politics, reinforcing the professional nature of process, adding efficiency and tightening questions to speed the journey to truth.

Fourth, if members or staff become aggressive, unruly or disrespectful, preordain censure and removal from the hearings, at the chairman’s discretion.

 Fifth, issue a “litigation hold” on all documents held by the administration and any witnesses, making destruction a criminal offense.

Sixth, if criminal referrals emerge from the process, consider lofting new independent counsel legislation, optimally with bipartisan support, to take the criminal prosecutions out of the political realm.

Seventh, openly remind the White House that executive privilege is not now, and never has been, protected by claims of executive privilege.

Eighth, as an evidentiary matter, as would apply to Watergate, Iran-Contra, or Waco hearings, turn over every stone.

There will not be a second try.

The Waco Hearings occurred two years after the event; these hearings will be in that same pattern.

In this case, memos to the Secretary of State, phone records of the Operations Centers at the White House, State, Defense and CIA, and a list of on-duty personnel during at all four centers during key times should be sought.

Copies of any non-disclosure agreements, gag orders or other documents that any such persons were forced to sign should be sought, together with any forced on those who were at or near the events.

Similarly, in the event that criminality is foreseen, all relevant hard drives for those involved should be subject to search, once reasonable cause is established.

The emails of all parties, including those to and from the White House Liaison (an official position) to the State and Defense Departments should be sought.

 Emails of those designated as “funnel” or authorized contacts between the White House and the Obama Campaign offices should be sought, as well as funnel contacts between State, Defense, CIA and the Obama Campaign, in possible violation of Hatch Act and other statutes.

All after-action reports, as well as requests for security within the preceding six months, should be acquired.

Nor should this inquiry be expected to be quick or held hostage to artificial deadlines.

Truth often appears in fits and starts, so the window for completion should be kept open.

This investigation and report will have to stand the test of time.

Similarly, outside counsel should be prepared to seek one or more interlocutory orders from the federal bench if needed, to compel documents, witnesses or real evidence where it is unjustifiably held by the administration.

In short, credibility in such high-profile congressional hearings only comes with intense preparation, clear intent, well-set and reasonable expectations, painful adherence to boring methods, careful attention not to encourage a media circus, building buy-in for findings, keeping the common interest in truth above politics, and evincing a determination to follow light where it leads.

 In Waco, it led not so much to grand conspiracy, not to tipping a presidential election one way or the other, but to a series of small and large, inevitably tragic missteps, any one of which might have led to a different outcome, but all of which combined to leave the Nation shattered.

 This many years later, much of what happened at Waco still seems as if it should have been avoidable.

Congressional hearings allowed America to see it all, to participate in the truth finding mission, and in the end, one hopes, to heal a bit.

Where these Benghazi hearings will actually lead, who can say?

But a few lessons from the past may help those in search of truth get there.

 

<><><><><><><><><><><> 

Robert Charles : 

Bobby Charles founded a national security and law enforcement focused consulting firm, The Charles Group, LLC in 1999 upon leaving service as Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice Subcommittee (GRO) in the House of Representatives from 1995-1999. Charles also served Subcommittee Chairman J. Dennis Hastert, onetime Speaker of the House, as chief staffer to The Speaker’s Task Force on a Drug Free America from 1997-1999 and as top staffer to the Bi-Partisan Drug Policy Group from 1995-1999. Bobby rejoined The Charles Group, LLC as President in April, 2005 after serving from 2003 to 2005 as Assistant Secretary of State, for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), under Secretaries Colin Powell and … show mCondoleezza Rice. Bobby received his J.D. from Columbia Law School in New York, M.A. in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Oxford University in England, and A.B. from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.

Letter from US Senator Mark Rubio to US President Barack Obama regarding the FARC negotiations in Havana, and potential prisoner release

US Senator Mark Rubio

June 3, 2014

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The outcome of the ongoing negotiations between the Government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) could have a serious and long lasting effect on the national security interests of the United States and Colombia.

Colombians have suffered for far too long as a result of the violence inflicted by the FARC, an organization considered a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States and the European Union.
 
We should do all we can to ensure the ongoing negotiations and any potential results do not weaken the integrity of our bilateral security efforts.

A hallmark of our security cooperation has been the extradition to the United States and conviction in U.S. courts of notorious drug traffickers and terrorists, including members of the FARC.

During his December 2013 ambassadorial nomination, U.S. Ambassador Kevin Whitaker reaffirmed these efforts when he said that the United States would continue to seek access to individuals who are wanted to stand trial in the United States for very serious crimes.

Unfortunately, amid the backdrop of the negotiations and the political debate in Colombia, reports persist about efforts to release and repatriate FARC members that are currently in U.S. custody.

Specifically, I continue to hear reports of potential petitions to repatriate:

·        Juvenal Ovidio Ricardo Palmera (a/k/a “Simon Trinidad”),

·        Anayibe Rojas (a/k/a “Sonia”), and

·        Jorge Enrique Rodriguez Mendieta (a/k/a “Ivan Vargas”).

 
These FARC members were tried and convicted in U.S. courts of offenses against the United States.

·        Ricardo Palmera was sentenced to 60 years in prison in relation to the hostage-taking of three Americans who were forced to spend years in captivity.

·        Anayibe Rojas was sentenced to over 16 years for overseeing a multi-million dollar drug trafficking ring.

·        Meanwhile, Jorge Enrique Mendieta was sentenced to over 20 years after admitting conspiracy to import large quantities of cocaine to the United States.

 
Any potential for the release of individuals such as these, who are serving sentences for crimes against U.S. law, is of grave concern.

I urge the Administration to respect the judicial process that led to the lawful incarceration of these dangerous individuals in the United States and ask that you firmly commit not to release or repatriate any FARC criminals in U.S. custody in relation to the ongoing negotiations in Cuba.

Sincerely,

Marco Rubio
United States Senator

[The TownHall] Enough White House Lies on Benghazi

Dear All,

This is the 2^nd article posted on “The Truth and Nothing but the Truth” regarding the breaking news on the Benghazi tragedy when four Americans were killed including the 1^st US Ambassador in 30 years, Chris Stevens.

As information continues to slowly trickle out of a reluctant White House, CIA, other intelligence organs, and other leaks, it is becoming crystal clear that President Obama’s behavior was extremely derelict while these brave men were being attacked and slaughtered over a nine hour period, and then followed up by a false White House narrative, to cover up his dereliction of duty by trying to blame the whole matter on a video.

This excellent article explains some of the facts leading up to the attack and why the president and his staff worked so hard to cover up the whole matter.  The denied requests for more protective support from the ambassador before going to Benghazi being one of their major concerns.

But most obnoxiously, it is now clear that while these men were being attacked, tortured, and killed, the president and his staff were more concerned about covering their political butts than they were about wanting to save these men’s lives by sending in the Calvary to try and rescue them, as often requested by the US Military [Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell]; an order "never given" by the president and a "never given order" he refuses to answer for; while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton angrily shouted, "What difference does it make?"

During his testimony, an obviously incensed Brig. Gen. Lovell stated, "The fact is, we should have tried", but neither the president or Hillary Clinton will justify their decision not to and the president refuses to explain why he never went to the "Situation room" or for that matter where he was while the conflict was raging.

President Obama should seriously consider that what brought down President Nixon wasn't the break-in of the Water Gate Hotel, but instead it was the lying when trying to cover it up.  Something that Americans are now witnessing today through Obama's press secretary Jay Carney and is obviously orchestrated by the administration; from inside the closed doors of the Oval Office. 

Jay Carney and his  fellow White House associates would do well to consider what happened to John Daniel Ehrlichman, Howard Hunt, Charles Colson, Gordon Liddy, and others that were caught up in the Watergate lies to protect President Nixon. 

Here is a link for your consideration: CSPAN:Benghazi Consulate Attack Investigation
May 01, 2014
Brig. Gen. Lovell, USAF (Ret.) - had extremely important testimony to offer
Ms. Schake, Ph.D
Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, Ph.D
Mr. Frederic  Wehrey, Ph.D

 Ron Kirkish

Enough White House Lies on Benghazi

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2014/05/02/enough-white-house-lies-on-benghazi-n1832242?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

David Limbaugh | May 02, 2014

The Obama administration has no shred of integrity left concerning the Benghazi scandal. Caught in the act with the "loaded gun," those in the administration are telling us it is a toy pistol, but no honest observer can possibly believe them anymore.

It took a lawsuit to force the White House to release emails that reveal just how deliberate and fraudulent the plan was to deceive the press and the American public about the cause of the attack on our consulate in Libya.

The incident and a nearby attack a few hours later, in which four Americans were killed, occurred in September 2012, just a few short months before the November presidential election. Obama's foreign policy credibility was on the line, for he had long boasted that he had al-Qaida on the run, despite his efforts to relax our war on terror into a law enforcement matter (except for his precious drones, of course).

Reports emerged that there had been previous attempted attacks on the consulate and that our people there had asked for heightened security, which the administration callously rejected. Was this sheer indifference or a result of Obama's concern that enhancing security would signal a failure in his magical policy of appeasing terrorists? Either way, it was disgraceful.

It was obvious at the time but is now undeniable that with cold premeditation, the administration hatched a sinister ploy to blame the attacks on an anti-Islam video that had surfaced on the Internet. There was no evidence that this video had incited the Benghazi attacks or that the attacks were spontaneous but much evidence that they were preplanned by al-Qaida terrorists. But the entire White House spin machine immediately went into overdrive constructing and disseminating this false narrative, even to the point of having federal authorities arrest the hapless creator of the video, whom they nabbed on other charges. This was a horrifying abuse of government power starting at the very top, and it is not the America any of us should love.

Finally, after a year of withholding internal emails, the White House, under legal compulsion, turned them over to Judicial Watch. Included was an email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, dated Sept. 14, 2012. Its subject heading was "RE: PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," and the email was sent to about a dozen members of Obama's inner circle, including press secretary Jay Carney.

The thrust of the message was clear: Protect Obama's image (and re-election efforts) at all costs; American interests and the American public's right to know be damned. It contained four bullet points:

--"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;

--"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

--"To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;

--"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

It was patently clear that the administration was not doing everything it could to protect its people and facilities in Benghazi. It had flat-out ignored or rejected their multiple requests for enhanced security and their expressed concerns about possible future attacks. The protests were not "rooted in an Internet video," as the CIA has made abundantly clear. In his congressional testimony, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell said that then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is the one who linked the video to the Benghazi attacks but that the video was not part of the CIA analysis. In other words, the administration made it up out of whole cloth to deflect blame for its policy failures in relaxing the war on terror, intervening in Libya to seek regime change with reckless disregard for whether more radical forces would emerge stronger as a result, and abandoning our people and facilities in Benghazi. Also, the administration has been anything but resolute in bringing the people and forces responsible for these attacks to justice.

An email on Sept. 12, 2012, to Rice from Payton Knopf, deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, confirmed the attacks were "planned in advance" and "complex," not spontaneous in reaction to a video.

When reporters grilled Carney about the email from Rhodes, Carney disgraced himself by stating that the email was referring to the video's effect on all the protests in the Middle East, not just in Benghazi. Everyone knows that was a flat-out lie. The prepping of Rice concerned only Benghazi, and Rice's Sunday show lie-fest concerned only Benghazi because that was the only issue that might affect Obama's re-election.

These emails confirm what we already knew: that the White House wholly concocted this idea to scapegoat the video to save Obama's skin and that everyone who mattered in the White House, including Obama, knew about it. It is inconceivable that he didn't.

As the administration still won't come clean even in the face of these smoldering guns, it's time to convene a congressional select committee. No more games.

Americans died. Justice languishes.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
FOX NEWS Reporting: Benghazi White House Cover-up Reveal

May 04, 2014, Sunday - Fox News - Brett Baier

Part 1 of 5 (video)

Part 2 of 5 (video)

Part 3 of 5 (video)

Part 4 of 5 (video)

Part 5 o5 5 (video)

Brett Baier: Special Committee for Benghazi

Former NSC Spokesman Tommy Vietor discussed Benghazi with Bret Baier

Boehner taps Gowdy to lead Benghazi select committee

US Congressman Trey Gowdy to the press, “Do you know Why?”

Read The Bill: Resolution to Create Select Committeeon Benghazi

Trey Gowdy On Benghazi : You tell ‘em I’m coming and hell is coming with me

 


 

 

First Legalization, Then Lawsuits

Can marijuana retailers survive the tort bar?

May 26, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 35 • By JOHN P. WALTERS and TOM RILEY

 

John P. Walters, director of drug control policy for President George W. Bush, is chief operating officer of the Hudson Institute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Riley, director of public affairs in the Office of National Drug Control Policy for President George W. Bush, writes on public policy in Philadelphia.

 

 

 

 

Some clever attorneys might partner directly with treatment providers for referrals.

 

Others might advertise on billboards, buses, television, and radio.

 

They might find that YouTube and sites on the Internet are a vast repository of self-incrimination. 

 

In addition, the retailers of marijuana as medicine—whether for smoking or eating in baked goods, candy, and ice cream—should be easy targets of legal action.

 

There is scant evidence of legitimate medical efficacy and much evidence that “medical marijuana” is a calculated fraud producing large profits.

 

Far from approving it, the FDA has written a letter denying that smoked marijuana is medicine. 

 

If you think trial lawyers made a windfall on tobacco, just wait until they get a handle on marijuana.

 

The scientific and medical evidence against marijuana now dwarfs what we knew about tobacco at the time of the surgeon general’s report of 1964.

 

No warning label in the world could shield marijuana growers and sellers from the tsunami of tort liability they should face from distributing a product with so many known harmful effects. 

 

Everyone loves the tale of Robin Hood because it is a story of justice—taking from oppressors and giving to the oppressed.

 

That story is about to be reenacted with a drug-dealing-retailer near you.

 

The rule of law is a beautiful thing; it can protect our democracy in times of danger even when national leaders and government institutions fail.