1st call for impeachment by member of Congress

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

'Absolutely,' Trent Franks tells blog, citing abandonment of DOMA law

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

A Republican congressman has told a left-leaning blog that if there is collective support, he would favor the impeachment of Barack Obama over his decision to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Scott Keyes of ThinkProgress.org asked U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.: "I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don't reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?" Keyes asked.

Franks replied: "If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts."

Keyes was referring to the announcement by Holder and Obama that they no longer would fulfill their official duties to defend the law of the United States when it came to the Defense of Marriage Act.

"While sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable," Holder explained in a statement announcing the conclusion he reached with Obama.

Holder said he and the president believe the law is unconstitutional.

"The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional," Holder said.

Keyes had asked, "What recourse does Congress have? Could you, for instance, defund the Department of Justice if they don't reverse course and start to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?"

Franks responded, "That's probably the strongest leverage that we have."

In a followup question from Keyes, Franks said he would support "in a moment" a move to defund the agency.

Think Progress describes itself as a "nonpartisan organization" tied to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It boasts of being named the "Best Liberal Blog" in 2006.

Comments on the site included mostly ridicule of Republicans:

* "They have such weird priorities: they won't even investigate torture, but private relationships between consenting adults is something that gets their hackles up. I'm really surprised that impeachment hearings haven't already commenced. Must be part of the deal he got for not prosecuting war crimes."

* "Republicans are acting like cry baby Democrat union thugs now."

* "Impeach a president who shows support for the constitution? What doesn't this freak understand about equal rights for all … including rights for those HIS GOD created?"

* "The teatarded and brain dead republicans need something to make them seem busy since they don't have a freaking clue what to do with the jobs and the economy. They know guns, religion, gays, abortion, and unnecessary wars. That is it."

But there also was a jab at Obama:

"What other laws do you think King Obama will choose not to defend in court?"

There was a massive negative reaction to Obama's move. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described it as an attempt by Obama to dictate his perspective to America .

"The president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama," he said. "The president swore an oath on the Bible to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed, not to decide which laws are and which are not constitutional."

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said actions by government officials who were sworn faithfully to uphold the laws of the United States are "outrageous."

"This is a federal law and the federal government, including the Obama administration and the Department of Justice, has an obligation to defend this law," he said. "This law has been attacked before and has been upheld as constitutional."

"This is tyranny," he said.

Judge Roy Moore, the former Supreme Court chief justice in Alabama and now chief of the Foundation for Moral Law, said his organization has filed an amicus brief in a dispute over the federal definition of marriage.

"I'm glad we didn't elect to depend on the president to defend our law," he said. "I hope now Congress will step up and take up the battle where the president has stopped."

He said such "arbitrary" decisions about a law's constitutionality have no place in America.

"Basically, he's not upholding the rule of law," he said.

A statement from Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association said, "As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he was against homosexual marriage. Many people at the time suspected he was intentionally being dishonest for political expediency, because he thought it would hurt his chances to beat John McCain if he said he was in favor of homosexual marriage. Now the truth is out. He was lying."

Commentaries raised the issue that should the precedent stand, a subsequent president simply could say that he and his Justice Department no longer would defend Obama's signature law, Obamacare, in court.

But it's far from the first discussion of impeachment, as WND reported

Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, before the 2010 election, predicted that the House would impeach Obama with a majority in the House, but he wouldn't be removed from office because that would demand 67 votes in the Senate.

"Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won't do it right away. And they won't succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office," Chait wrote.

In the public forum section of Chait's column, "Ironyroad" wrote, "They'll buy themselves a race war. People aren't going to take it lying down, because they'll know it's because Obama's skin tone isn't to their taste, not because of high crimes and misdemeanors."

In his explanation of why he believes an impeachment could be forthcoming, Chait says the reason itself actually won't matter.

"Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense," Chait wrote.

WND reported earlier when Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, who served in Vietnam and commanded the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground during his long military career, suggested Congress should simply hand Obama an ultimatum.

"Action should be taken by the Senate and should be taken by the House," he said. "They should serve notice on him and say, 'Mr. President, we love you but we want to tell you something. You're under a cloud of suspicion. We can't continue running this country with you in charge under this cloud. Now either you clear it up or you resign from office.'"

He was answering questions on Stan Solomon's "Talk to Solomon" show:

Further, retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a noted military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites, earlier told WND he believes Obama should resign.

Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said, "We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro (aka President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution."

"We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government," he has warned.

"'We the People' have had enough. Enough is enough. The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive-socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. 'We the People' cannot wait for and solely rely on the next round of elections in November of this year. It is now and each day that these public servants must put the citizen's interests above self-interest by resigning immediately," he said.

Peter Ferrara, on the American Spectator website, also has predicted Obama's resignation.

"I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it [to 2012]," he wrote. "I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012," Ferrera said.

WND also reported that former congressman and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath to defend the United States against enemies "foreign and domestic," they need to file impeachment charges against Obama.

Tancredo wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Times that Obama's "refusal to live up to his own oath of office – which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion – requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama."

At the same time, Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote, "President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached."

Kuhner continued, "He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go."


And at the Taking America Back 2010 conference in Miami in September, Floyd Brown expanded on the idea.

Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, said, "The Obama presidency is a disease. … Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment clause of the Constitution) is the cure. And it's Obama's hatred of America that makes it absolutely imperative that we take action now.

"Barack Hussein Obama is not some do-gooder that has had his plans go astray," Brown added. "He is not a person of good will just trying his best to make America go the right direction. He is not. Barack Hussein Obama is a liar that absolutely knows what he's doing to the United States of America. He has a plan. He has an agenda. This man knows exactly where he's taking us.

"Barack Obama is a very dangerous man," said Brown. "Over the last two years, we have been watching the slow progression of what I call a bloodless coup."

Read more: 1st call for impeachment by member of Congress http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=270077#ixzz1FanGKFAG

Congress, Obama team up to kill marriage protections

WND Exclusive QUEERLY BELOVED

'Respect' proposal has nearly 100 members of Congress endorsing homosexualityR

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Nearly 100 members of the U.S. House are working in lockstep with the Obama administration to try to eliminate protections for traditional marriage in the United States with the "Respect for Marriage Act" that has just been introduced in Congress.

H.R. 3567 was introduced just days ago by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, and more than 90 co-sponsors.

"This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples," Nadler said in a statement on his website.The proposal has been assigned to committee.

"The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families," his statement continued.

"The introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act responds directly to a call from President Obama for congressional action on the issue. As the president recently confirmed: 'I stand by my long-standing commitment to work
with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with states' rights, and it's time we overturned it," the statement said.

Obama's opposition to traditional marriage was made clear recently when his Justice Department filed a legal brief seeking the repeal of DOMA.

The Defense of Marriage Act provides that federal laws must be interpreted in accord with the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife.

But Justice Department lawyer Scott Simpson filed a brief Aug 17 declaring: "With respects to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."

In a written statement, Obama declared:

[T]he Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.

The Justice Department said it "does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing" and evidence "that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."

According to an analysis by Alliance Defense Fund, a repeal of the primary federal law that protects marriage opens the door for litigation that would seek to force states to recognize "marriages" between same-sex duos.

"Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. There's more to a marriage than that. A decisive majority of Americans believe this, and they are tired of being treated with contempt by politicians," said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

"Many of those in favor of this bill argue that the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is not intended to force same-sex 'marriage' on all the states. If that is not the intent, its supporters wouldn't be seeking to repeal the section of DOMA that makes it clear that states have a right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," he continued.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. It was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, same-sex couples make up less than half of one percent of the total U.S. population. Repeatedly, polls have show general support in America for the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Gallup in May reported the lowest support for same-sex "marriage" in years, with nearly 60 percent opposed to the status.

The ADF also noted that in the 30 states where voters have been given the choice of defining marriage, 30 times they have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman only.

However, DOMA detractors say their new "Respect" law would embrace "the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized."

The supporters say marriages in states still would be decided by each state, but the point raises questions among traditional marriage supporters: How would one be "married" under federal law but not "married" under state law in those states where marriage already is constitutionally defined as involving a man and a woman.

Nadler's announcement about his proposal takes that issue headon. "It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple's marriage for purposes of state law."

The Full Faith and Credit requirement essentially mandates that states recognize laws of other states.

Nadler said the plan has the support of those "harmed by DOMA," including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and others.

"With a president who is committed to repaling DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law," Nadler said.

The proposed law states: "For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has said if DOMA is gone, the door is open to an all-out assault on states' rights.

"Then the individual states are sort of sitting ducks," Staver explained. "What would happen is same-sex marriage would rush over the dam of the various borders of the states, so to speak, like a floodwater rushing over the top of a dam, and flood all the other states."

Staver told WND's Greg Corombos he believes the issue will ultimately go before the U.S. Supreme Court, though he claims the court has no constitutional authority to redefine marriage.

"The Supreme Court should not be in the business of redefining or even defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," he said. "That transcends the Constitution. It is something that is part of our natural existence. It is something that transcends political parties and geographies and time. The Supreme Court should not be in the business of actually redefining it. If in fact they do redefine to something other than what it is, it clearly shows we have an activist court. I think we need to make sure we have justices on the bench that understand the role as an umpire, not activist legislators."

As WND reported earlier, the White House after the election scrubbed President Obama's central pledge to the homosexual community to repeal DOMA from its website.

The president unveiled his pro-homosexual agenda on the White House website on Inauguration Day. Under the "Civil Rights" section, he called for the repeal of the act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 after an overwhelming bipartisan vote in Congress (342-67 and 85-14).

The following is the original language posted on the White House website as Obama took office:

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights. (emphasis added)

The White House later edited the statement, changing it to:

President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. ... (emphasis added)

In December 2008, Obama told the Advocate, "I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA."

In a Feb. 8, 2008, letter posted on his website, Obama promised "LGBT equality in America." It stated:

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.