A “SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME”
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2014
(Jun. 18, 2014) — So, now, nearly two years after four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, were murdered after being abandoned by the regime in power – no, not the Libyans… the one reigning from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue –, U.S. Special Forces have captured Monsieur Ahmed abu Khatallah. Abu Khatallah is the suspected ringleader of the terrorists who carried out the destruction of the U.S. compound at Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
This terrorist was not, as Hillary Clinton would no doubt prefer to describe him, merely a highly agitated “film critic” upset over “that vile video.” Rather, he was and presumably remains an Islamist jihadist dedicated to the destruction of the United States and the beheading of infidels, wherever they may be found. For him, Benghazi was merely a preview of coming attractions.
Fast forward to the reaction of the State Department to the capture of Abu Khatallah and the responses given yesterday by agency flack Jen Psaki to some pointed questions posed to her by Fox News reporter James Rosen.
Unbelievable. With each passing day, the dissembling of the regime and its agents grows more blatant. A blind Martian, let alone the American electorate in November, could see the depth of the perfidy emanating from this administration. Memo to the aforesaid November electorate: if you are at the bottom of a hole and want to get out…. stop digging the hole deeper.
Adding insult to injury – the regime long ago having elevated that condition to an art form – Psaki’s final comment (at 2:14 in the video clip: “where we are today is that the outcome was successful….”) echoes Hillary Clinton’s disgraceful question in the Benghazi hearings: “At this point in time, what difference does it make?” Both Clinton’s and Psaki’s comments were coughed up in an anemic and juvenile attempt to deflect attention from the fact that the pointed questions being posed to them were being evaded and that no responsive answers would be forthcoming.
These faux patriots cannot seem to understand that the vast majority of Americans, even including many who were once but are no longer bamboozled by the Pied Piper of Chicago, now relocated to Washington, D.C., are fed up with the lies and defalcations. And with the continuing exposure of the rampant and felonious conduct of the IRS, compounded by the regime’s “my-dog-Bo-ate-the-Lerner-emails;” the dangerous swap of one likely deserter for five Gitmo jihadists; and the utterly feckless response to the invasion by tens of thousands of illegal aliens, the collapse of the regime’s house of cards seems to be fast approaching.
So, once again it must be asked: what will it take to finally do something to either impeach or otherwise remove the leader and his apparatchiks from office?
Stated otherwise, in Hillaryspeak: “Impeachment or removal… what difference does it make?” because, in Psakispeak, the important thing is that “the outcome be successful.”
That it is incontrovertible by the facts that Obama has never been the bona-fides POTUS in the “1st Instant” precludes Impeachment as the appropriate protocol under which to try Obama. He is a usurper and fraud, an impersonator of a public official. Obama is NOT entitled to be tried by the SCOTUS Chief Justice and his fate voted upon by his cohorts in the Senate. Obama can and should be arrested on a bench warrant issued by a federal U.S. District Court magistrate or Judge from D.C.and tried in the U.S. District Court therein.
USURPATION is a “civil offense”.
It’s true that elements of 50 USC chap. 23 at 841 et. seq. have been violated under the cover of the assumed legitimacy of the National Politically preferred Political Parties, but pursuing “criminal charges” leads the U.S. into the weeds and the “jungle warfare” that the marxist revolutionaries” thrive in.
Keep it simple.
The 25th Amendment provides for REMOVAL in a generic sense and specifically for the cause of “inability” under the OPERATION of LAW.
“No person except a (U.S.) natural born Citizen shall be eligible” IS BLACK-LETTER STATUTORY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW and the lack of ability to conform to that hyphenated form of U.S. Citizenship is an “inability” recognizable within the language of the 25th Amendment.
Re: OPERATION OF LAW ….. (see (a)(2)
3 U.S. Code § 19 – Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
(a)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.
Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; There is a difference between “Impeachment by indictment and trial” and REMOVAL by the Operation of Law.
I’ll offer an analogy and see if you can discern the distinctions.
Say that Osama Bin Lately had been captured on the field of battle at Tora Bora and the choices of prosecution were laid on the table:
USDC District of New York, New York City or Military War Crimes Tribunal at GITMO.
Civil under U.S. Federal Law or Criminal under Law of Nations regarding conduct of Wars.
The “0” has usurped the Office of POTUS in OFFENSE of the natural laws and laws of nations by occupying an office RESERVED by Constitutional proscription to a specific form of Citizenship, acknowledged and specified by the Constitution, that has it’s Political roots firmly planted in the works of Aristotle, Bk III, Politics, the foundation of Western Civilizations Political understandings.
The 25th Amendment provides for REMOVAL as an Operation of Law when a person is “unable” to perform their duties. It does NOT limit the causes of ‘inability” and the greatest Constitutional cause of inability is ineligibility in the 1st instant.