Five Reasons to Impeach Joe Biden

June 22, 2022 By Ed Brodow

American has a two-tiered justice system. If you are liberal and vote Democratic, you can get away with anything. Hillary Clinton is proof of that. If you are conservative, Republican, and a Trump supporter, you can’t even get away with scratching your own behind. But for argument’s sake, let’s suppose we have a single standard for justice. In that case, here are five unassailable reasons that justify impeaching President Biden. This is not meant to be a complete list, but it will do for starters.

1. Biden’s corrupt activities constitute treason - Biden has abused his office by violating the laws he has sworn to defend. .......
2. Biden’s violation of U.S. immigration law constitutes treason - Under Trump, the U.S. became energy independent. Biden reversed Trump’s sensible energy policies, causing the worst inflation in 40 years, runaway gas, food, and heating prices, and looming recession. As far back as the 2020 election, Biden has boasted about his intention to destroy our reliance on fossil fuels...........
3. Biden is waging war on the energy sector to deliberately destroy the American economy- Under Trump, the U.S. became energy independent. Biden reversed Trump’s sensible energy policies, causing the worst inflation in 40 years, runaway gas, food, and heating prices, and looming recession. As far back as the 2020 election, Biden has boasted about his intention to destroy our reliance on fossil fuels.............
4. Biden is directing the enforcement branches of the federal government against his political enemies - Biden believes that “domestic political extremism” is “the most urgent terrorism threat” facing the U.S.......
5. Biden is violating the equal protection clause - Biden is presiding over an inquisition against white Americans.......

To Read More.....

My Take - Okay, the Constitutional definition of treason is:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 

While Biden's actions and the actions of his administration certainly are treasonous in principle, they may not be treason in law.  Having said that, it still doesn't alter the fact all that's listed here demonstrate he and his administration are guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  

High Crimes sounds really terrible, but that phrase doesn't mean a more serious crime.  When the Constitution was written it was understood a crime was a crime of high office, including failure to uphold their oath of office.  All of which I explain here.  Not only Biden, but many of his appointees deserve to be impeached for the High Crime of failing to uphold their oath of office, including federal judges, whether he appointed them or not.   

I think this next piece is an excellent history lesson, then you decide if he and many in his administration are traitors.  I think so, but that's one man's view.

The Pétain Presidency Delaware Democrat Joe Biden is collaborator-in-chief. - By Lloyd Billingsley June 20, 2022

Before his recent bicycle mishap, Joe Biden tripped over himself getting into Air Force One, where he stumbled three times before boarding. Beyond basic motor functions, Biden has a problem with history.......... Joe Biden turns 80 in November, but the resemblance is not just a matter of age. Like Pétain, Biden’s collaboration with hostile forces knows no bounds. In the aftermath of World War II, British agent Malcolm Muggeridge served as a liaison with the French Sécurité Militaire. By using “criminal elements,” Muggeridge wrote in Chronicles of Wasted Time, “the Germans were able, despite the Resistance, to maintain their position in France with very few troops, and those often elderly reservists.” 

Biden collaborates with criminal cartels that smuggle foreign nationals into the United States with no background checks or health restrictions, and ships illegals around the country in secret night flights. That cancels the border and the immigration law the president of the United States is supposed to uphold. Biden’s Department of Homeland Security ignores actual foreign terrorists, collaborates with criminal smugglers, and targets “disinformation.” Biden has his own propagandist in Nina Jancowicz, the professional narrative enforcer whose DHS “disinformation board” has only been “paused.” 

The globalist Biden is also a dutiful collaborator with the United Nations and World Health Organization, both in the pocket of Communist China. As Biden said in 2019, the Chinese are “not bad folks,” and the “Big Guy” has financial entanglements with China’s Communist regime through son Hunter, whose laptop is not “Russian disinformation.” 

In the style of Pétain, Biden is the puppet of a socialist squad that wants the people to get only what the government wants them to have, the basic totalitarian model. Joe Biden has trouble with the law of gravity, the law of supply and demand, and federal immigration law. As he wrecks the economy, Biden tells Americans they live in the best of all possible worlds. For all but the willfully blind, things are getting worse by the day.............

January 6 Show Trials Expose Biden Democrats at a Low Ebb - By Matthew Boose June 20, 2022 - Throughout the Biden era, Democrats have been preoccupied with painting their political opponents as enemies of the state beyond the pale of Our Democracy™. As the midterm elections draw closer, the limits of this approach are becoming clear. The polls reflect what voters can feel: Democrats are due for a spanking in November.  They have failed to deliver what they promised. The country isn’t calmer or more unified. The Biden Administration is not only reckless and incompetent but often appears indifferent to the problems facing the middle-class. Cost of living is skyrocketing with no end in sight, and basic products are becoming scarce, but Biden’s attention is absorbed by tasks like ensuring “trans youth” have uninhibited access to puberty blockers. The electorate is justifiably depressed and pessimistic about the future.............  

Losing Our Democracy - By John Leonard - Hillary Clinton just became the most recent Democrat to claim we’re “standing on the precipice of losing our democracy” and of all people, Hillary ought to know. After all, it was her minions and her campaign that undertook the most dedicated effort in U.S. history to undermine a political opponent with a “dirty tricks” campaign that deliberately misused government assets to make an unprecedented attack against a political opponent. Now, thanks to John Durham’s investigation, we know with certainty that Hillary’s campaign was behind the fake Alfa Bank scandal and the accusations of Trump being an agent of Russia all along, and that she personally authorized the seditious behavior. How do we know? Robby Mook testified to that fact in front of a jury while at risk of penalty for perjury.......

Thought For the Day

By Rich Kozlovich

 

The U.S. Government has finally reached peak "Peter Principle" "...every position in a given hierarchy will eventually be filled by employees who are incompetent to fulfill the job duties of their respective positions."  This leads to Peter's corollary: "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties."  Here's a list of Biden's cabinet members, appointees and Members of Congress, who by their actions and thoughts, demonstrate they qualify for that definition to be applied to them.  

 

Yellen, Powell, Mayorkas, Granholm, Buttigieg, Milley, Austin, Blinken,  Pelosi, Schumer,  Cardona, Granholm, Fudge, Becerra, Harris and Biden.   The rest are most likely just as bad, I just haven't followed them. 

 

The question is:  Are their actions criminal?  And clearly in some cases, they are.

 

Victor Davis Hanson: What do we do with a president who refuses to enforce laws?

Hanson points to 'new low bar of impeachment' used against Trump 

By Fox News Staff  

Fox News Hanson: Biden not enforcing laws he took an oath to 'faithfully execute' Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution wonders why a former president can be impeached for a phone call while a current president has escaped impeachment after failing to protect Americans at the U.S. border. Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution Victor Davis Hanson called out hypocrisy by Democrats for impeaching former President Donald Trump over a phone call, yet allowing Biden to get away with wide-open border policies that are threatening America's security. Hanson argued on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Monday that "it's madness" Joe Biden is getting away with not enforcing "the laws" that he took "an oath to fully execute."

• John Kennedy:  Biden Lied to the American People, He Believes in Open Borders

The President of the United States takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States as his duty as president. And we've impeached the president for a phone call. And under that low bar, the new low bar of impeachment, what do we do with a president who says to the American people, I'm not going to enforce the laws that I took an oath to faithfully execute? It doesn't make any sense. It's madness. - Victor Davis Hanson

Election Lawsuits Move Forward Despite Silencing Crusade

Even though Trump’s fate is sealed, the Supreme Court still has time to rectify the election’s many wrongs. The only remaining question is—will they? 

 

By Julie Kelly  January 18, 2021

  

As the country looks back at the mayhem that has unfolded over the past few months, one moment stands out: The most consequential event since Election Day—hands down—was the Supreme Court’s rejection of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against four states that helped decide the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

In fact, it’s easy to assume if the court had agreed to consider the petition, the melee on January 6 never would have happened.

Paxton’s case detailed the unlawful handling of mail-in ballots in Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, votes that overwhelmingly favored Joe Biden. (Biden flipped those states by a combined 270,000 votes; more than 9 million ballots were absentee.) Several Republican state attorneys general and more than 100 GOP House members immediately joined the suit. There were no claims of “kraken” or foreign servers or bribed governors, just indisputable facts of what happened...............

 Now that the news media, Big Tech, and lawmakers of both parties are attempting to criminalize criticism of the 2020 election—the president was impeached a second time for allegedly inciting an “insurrection” following his fiery speech to supporters gathered in the capital on January 6—the court’s denial of the Texas lawsuit looms large. As I cautioned in December, the vacuum created by inaction in the court system and the Justice Department would fuel chaos...........Silencing or even criminalizing accusations of election fraud, however, cannot stop the legal process from moving forward. ...........To Read More.....

What are the new SCOTUS justices thinking?

By Marlo Horne  December 25, 2020

There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, and we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.

—Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene 3

The new SCOTUS justices have to be aware that our United States Constitution is under attack, not just from anarchists, but also from numerous politicians and the media.  Freedom of speech, the right to own a weapon, and property rights are all being attacked, and to a fundamental degree, our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being increasingly denied.  There has been extreme violence in several of our major cities, which does not meet even token resistance from their governors and mayors.  Lives have already been lost.  In addition, the rioting has destroyed numerous businesses, thereby destroying property and denying liberty and pursuit of happiness for those business-owners.

There is a report that the chief justice, John Roberts, is afraid of inciting riots and said he would tell the other justices how to vote.  Considering John Roberts's actions in the past that appeared to be politically motivated, he may well be concerned that a SCOTUS ruling could incite violence.  His determination to uphold the Constitution seems to be weak at best.  However, the older conservative justices, Alito and Thomas, proved that they were willing to hear cases about the fraudulent election when they dissented in the Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. case.  So why wouldn't the new SCOTUS justices follow the lead of Alito and Thomas, especially when the issue of free and fair elections is so vital to our Constitution?...............To Read More.....

Dershowitz: 'Neither is Congress above the law'

Longtime liberal warns Democrats' impeachment agenda just wrong

Alan Dershowitz

Longtime liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the nation’s founders would not have approved of the Democrats current effort to impeach the president.

“We hear from so many Democrats today that no one is above the law, referring to the president. But neither is Congress above the law, and the law mandates that the explicit criteria laid down in the Constitution for impeaching a president must be followed,” he wrote in a commentary for The Hill.

He pointed out that Democrats are arguing “President Trump can be impeached without evidence of high criminal acts.” However, “there are good historical reasons why the current approach of Democrats seeking impeachment is wrong.” ..........To Read More....

Trump: Article of Impeachment - He Talks Too Much!

By Rich Kozlovich

Since President Donald Trump was elected we’ve seen our favorite loon, Mad Maxine Waters, rail against him demanding he be impeached, for among other things – he says things that hurt people’s feelings and he calls people names.  Is that really grounds for impeachment?

Actually – if history means anything – yes! Let’s take a look at the Articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson, where there were 11 Articles – all of which should have been laughed out of Congress, based on what was eventually declared unconstitutional, the Tenure of Office Act. This in effect gave Congress power over cabinet posts and not the President of the United States.

Most of the articles were all about the fact he had the nerve to fire his Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, (Stanton was an ally and tool of the radical Republicans and caused disruption in Lincoln’s cabinet also) without the consent of the Congress, and then appoint someone else to the job. The radical Republicans claimed he couldn’t do that because he didn’t have the right to fire Stanton in the first place therefore the job wasn’t open to be filled.

The real reason for this impeachment action was the radical Republicans in Congress didn’t want the Southern states to return in any way except as conquered territory and if they returned it would be under strict rules. Johnson was merely following President Lincoln’s plan for a lenient restoration of a defeated South.

I know it sounds insane, and I doubt Mad Maxine knows this, but when Andrew Johnson was impeached a part of one of the charges for impeachment was:

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and propriety thereof ….…….

made and deliver with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces as well against Congress as the laws of the United States….

Which said utterances, declarations, threats, and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof ……

Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the united states in to contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens.

In short, he talked too much and in a divisive manner - which they didn’t like - they were the first snowflakes. Wow, is Trump in real trouble now?

The Constitution says the President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. What’s that mean?

On Sunday June, 8, 2014 I wrote an article entitled, The Post Constitutional Era! Part XV about executive impeachment saying:

The president must “take care” that federal laws are executed. However, if the president and vice president fail they can be removed from office if they are impeached and convicted of treason, bribery, or other “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

There has always been a great deal of discussion as to what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”. I will attempt to outline the historical foundation for that phrase. Jon Roland of the Constitution Society states that it had meaning and understanding to the Framers stating:

“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.”

He further states:

“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.”

He notes the same values applies today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where civilians could not be punished, but those with “sworn” duties are held accountable for their failure to perform, and their “offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform”, are punishable.

To the Founding Fathers the word "perjury" – derived from a number of Latin terms including – periurium - meaning “a false oath, perjury, and would have meant a "violation of an oath’". 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 because he has assumed an official role and that role is that of a “witness under oath” for the duration of his testimony”’, i.e. his term of office. That’s what perjury a “high crime” as it is a crime of high office. So when the President swears to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", and fails to do so he is guilty of a “high crime”.

The author notes that to hold a “high” office comes to everyone as a privilege” – it isn’t a right, and removal is based on the preponderance of evidence, even if that "high crime or misdemeanor" is “referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.”

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, which truly are high crimes in every sense – and he was guilty as sin – and any normal person would have resigned in disgrace, but not Bill Clinton and the Congress couldn’t bring itself to kick him out of office.  If the Democrats had demanded Clinton's resignation Gore would have been sworn in and then most likely would have won the next election.   

Then we have Obama, who actually refused to enforce laws passed by Congress, a clear violation of his oath of office - as I've shown, perjury by definition - absolutely impeachable and completely provable. Apparently the nation could bear all of those real high crimes and misdemeanors.

But Trump talks too much. That’s unbearable!

Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws

30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action.

Dec 12, 2013• By DANIEL HALPER

South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.

"President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President. However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents," Rice wrote in a letter to fellow House members to ask them to co-sponsor this resolution.

"This resolution allows the House of Representatives to bring legal action against the Executive Branch and challenge recent actions, inactions, and policies."

The "legal action against the President" would be, according to an aide for Rep. Rice, "for ignoring Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution." Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states,......To Read More.....