**THIS BLOG is NOT to incite any problems; it’s purpose IS to Evoke THOUGHT, Awareness and Realization……**
Knowledge is Power.
Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”
by Jon Roland, Constitution Society
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word “high”. It does not mean “more serious”. It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.
Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject’s fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.
Perjury is usually defined as “lying under oath”. That is not quite right. The original meaning was “violation of one’s oath (or affirmation)”.
The word “perjury” is usually defined today as “lying under oath about a material matter”, but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is “violation of an oath”. We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter “j” is the letter “i” in Latin.
- periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.
- periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.
- iurator, oris, m., a swearer.
- iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.
- ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.
- per, … IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, … under pretense of, by the pretext of, ….
By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.
When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of “witness under oath”, for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime.
An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.
An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr’s words, to “lay them at the feet” of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president’s subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by “plausible deniability”. He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.
Posted by: The Liberty Beacon™ Staff
Published February 4, 2013
A little-discussed executive order from President Obama giving foreign cops new police powers in the United States by exempting them from such drudgery as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is raising alarm among commentators who say INTERPOL already had most of the same privileges as diplomats.
At David Horowitz’s Newsreal, Michael van der Galien said the issue is Obama’s expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s order from 1983 that originally granted those diplomatic privileges.
Reagan’s order carried certain exemptions requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. Obama, however, removed those restrictions in his Dec. 16 amendment to Executive Order 12425.
That means, van der Galien wrote today, “this foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse.”
“‘Property and assets,’ including the organization’s records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities,” he wrote.
“AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them,” he wrote.
At the ThreatsWatch.org website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton gave their interpretation of the result.
“In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves,” they wrote.
“When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement,” they said.
“For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with ‘inviolable archives’ from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds,” they said.
“Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.”
Records show that the original order designated INTERPOL as a public international organization. Reagan had extended “appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities,” but kept it subject to searches and seizures under appropriate legal circumstances.
Obama’s decision, analysts have concluded, exempted Interpol from all restrictions.
“This international law enforcement body now operates – now operates– on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests,” ThreatsWatch reported.
At the Patriot Room, it was explained there is a reason for a certain level of immunity.
“Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn’t matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here.”
But with Obama’s change, “It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure.”
By Justin Sink – 02/04/13
The Department of Justice has developed a white paper outlining the specific circumstances under which the United States can conduct a lethal drone strike against an American citizen, a copy of which was obtained Monday by NBC News.
The paper provides the first detailed look at the criteria the Obama administration uses to judge if it can legally kill American citizens traveling abroad without the benefit of due process. The release of the administration’s legal rationale comes days before CIA nominee John Brennan is scheduled to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Panel members, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), have been pressing the administration on the issue for more than a year.The memo does not carry legal weight, although administration officials told the network the document is similar to classified guidance developed by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
It also provides a legal justification for the killing of cleric Anwar al-Awaki in Yemen in 2011. Al-Awlaki, a senior leader in al Qaeda born in the United States, was linked to multiple terrorist attacks, including those of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged in the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, and Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square last year.
Al-Awlaki’s killing drew pronounced criticism from civil libertarian groups, who argued his constitutional rights to due process had been violated. In 2010, al-Awlaki’s father — with assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union — attempted to sue the United States government after his son was placed on the CIA’s targeted kill list. The White House invoked state secrets privilege to have that case dismissed from courts.
The lawsuit also sought to compel the government to disclose the guidelines under which a U.S. citizen would be put on a kill list. While the memo revealed Monday does not outline the criteria under which a senior American official can declare a citizen to be an imminent threat, it does illuminate the process under which the Justice Department believes a lethal strike could be constitutionally justified.
In an interview with NBC, Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, called the document “chilling.”
“Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated,” Jaffer said.
IF Guns are BAD for U.S. Citizens to possess, (Even though protected under our inalienable RIGHT under 2nd Amendment protections…shall NOT be infringed)… WHY has DHS just purchased 7,000 of them for Personal Defense?
RELATED LINKS: READ BY CLICKING ON BLUE LETTERS BELOW
Why Did The DHS, ICE Just Order 450 MILLION Rounds Of .40 Caliber Ammunition? WHO gave the Order To Do So? Obama? Holder? Napolitano?
First it Was DHS ordering Large Amounts of Ammo; Now The USDA And US Fish And Wildlife Order Massive Amounts Of Ammo
***FEBRUARY 7, 2013***
The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest.
A solicitation posted yesterday on the Fed Bid website details how the bullets are required for the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico.
The solicitation asks for 10 million pistol cartridge .40 caliber 165 Grain, jacketed Hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds) and 10 million 9mm 115 grain jacketed hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds).
The document also lists a requirement for 1.6 million pistol cartridge 9mm ball bullets (40 quantities of 40,000 rounds).
An approximation of how many rounds of ammunition the DHS has now secured over the last 10 months stands at around 1.625 billion.
To put that in perspective, during the height of active battle operations in Iraq, US soldiers used 5.5 million rounds of ammunition a month. Extrapolating the figures, the DHS has purchased enough bullets over the last 10 months to wage a full scale war for almost 30 years.
Hypocrisy Alert: Weather Underground Terrorist Bernadine Dohrn Lectures America About Guns. Marxist Octopus Arms Reach All the Way to the White House
Weather Underground Terrorist Bernadine Dohrn Lectures America About Guns
January 17, 2013
Here’s further proof that the American left has brass cojones the size of basketballs.
Bernadine Dohrn, the wife of Bill Ayers, who is herself also a former member of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground, is now joining the chorus of liberals calling for greater gun control.
No word yet on how she feels about bomb control…
Watch Out for Fake Gun Control Reforms
Almost none of us want automatic or semi-automatic weapons in the hands of children or youth. The challenge is to make sure that the push toward a new wave of gun control laws in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, tragedy does not include the failed cliches of more police in schools, more searches of children and adolescents, or greater criminalization of young people.
We want gun control that sanctions manufacturers, distributors and adults who place, and profit from, deadly weapons in the possession of youth. We want military-style weaponry banned. We want smaller schools with nurses and social workers, librarians and parent volunteers – all of which are shown to contribute to less disruption and less violence. Let’s promote gun-control provisions and regulations that enhance teaching and learning as well as justice and safety for children, not those that will further incarcerate, punish and demonize young people of color. We’ve been there before.
Got that America? Guns in the hands of law abiding Americans is bad and racism or something. It’s totally different if you’re an activist who was just trying to off some imperialist pigs.
**All credit for this posting to American Glob**
For those that don’t know Bernadine Dohrn…..the wife of Terrorist Bill Ayers……Keep reading
Bernadine Dohrn worked with Michelle Obama at Sidley Austin BEFORE Barack Obama arrived there.
***IMPORTANT READ AT LINK BELOW***
Army Drill Terrorizes Houston Neighborhood: Urban Helicopter Warfare
Machine gun fire from military helicopters – Miami Florida
Interesting … Military Police Training to Drive Armored Vehicles on Civilian Streets
In St. Louis, Missouri; troops from Maryland……NO cities closer to Maryland?
Valerie Jarrett in Charge of DHS? The Jarrett/Napolitano Plans for America. Crisis on Horizon. Bill Ayers STILL an Influence.
Obama has been utilizing Dialectic Process (brainwashing) upon the American citizenry for 4+ years.
Background information (On Dialectic Process):
● Georg Hegel (1770 – 1831), an occultist, laid the foundation for Communist brainwashing. Today, his compromising philosophy and transformational process are changing churches as well as politics, education, business and communities.
● Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) adapted Hegel’s philosophy to his vision of a Communist/socialist world system. (See From Marx to Lenin, Gramsci & Alinsky)
● Like Marx, Lenin and Stalin saw Hegelian dialectic process as an essential tool for managing the masses. Through their hierarchical system of soviets (groups led by trained facilitators who led the group dialogue toward a prescribed and evolving consensus). Everyone had to trade individual thinking for collective thinking and communal values. The vision of “common good” was simply the carrot that justified total and cruel control. (See When Iron Gates Yield).
From Marx to Lenin, Gramsci & Alinsky
Obama’s Ideological Father: “Gramsci... organized the Italian Communist party in 1921…. Since this was four years after the Russian Revolution, Gramsci assumed Italians would welcome a Bolshevik convulsion of their own. But it didn’t happen…. He found three explanations: Christianity, nationalism and charity. …the way to set the stage for a Marxist revolution was in coming to grips with these three conditions….
The first stratagem was the assault on Christianity by arguing religion should not inform or be employed in public discourse. Gramsci realized that if religion were confined to private worship, its hold on Italians would dissipate….
Second… Gramsci contended Italians were part of a grand global mission….
Last… Gramsci engaged in efforts to persuade Italians that the way, the only way, to express humanitarian concern for the poor or those left behind as the detritus of capitalism is through a government that can be benevolent….
“Obama… has suggested overtly and tacitly that religion should be a matter relegated to private worship outside the confines of public life…. [Through] his proposal to deny tax deductions for charitable gifts, government is being converted into the only public charity. Moreover, the transfer of wealth in the stimulus package and the increased tax burden on the most productive element of society will inevitably decrease incentives and expand the size and influence of government….. Our leaders may not identify themselves as Gramscians and may even mock the designation, but make no mistake: Gramsci’s DNA is in their bloodstream.”
“…Gramsci was a Marxist through and through. And the bedrock essence of Marxism—the cornerstone of the Marxist ideal of a this-worldly Paradise as the summit of human existence—is that there is nothing beyond the matter of this universe. There is nothing in existence that transcends man—his material organism within his material surroundings.”