Does The US Military have the legal and lawful Jurisdiction to remove a sitting president?

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper, Patriot and Infidel.

This is an extraordinarily interesting story from a very creative mind, however the U.S. Constitution provides no such clause for removing a sitting president from office.

Not so for a sheriff who would subpoena a sitting president to come before a grand

Clause 6: Trial of Impeachment

MilitaryMenThe Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Clause Six grants to the Senate the sole power to try impeachments and spells out the basic procedures for impeachment trials.

The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that the Senate has exclusive and unreviewable authority to determine what constitutes an adequate impeachment trial. Of the nineteen federal officials formally impeached by the House of Representatives, eleven were acquitted and seven were convicted by the Senate. On one occasion the Senate declined to hold a trial.



The constitution’s framers vested the Senate with this power for several reasons. First, they believed Senators would be better educated, more virtuous, and more high-minded than Members of the House of Representatives and thus uniquely able to decide responsibly the most difficult of political questions.


Second, they believed that the Senate, being a numerous body, would be well suited to handle the procedural demands of an impeachment trial, in which it, unlike judges and the judiciary system, would “never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutor, or in the construction of it by judges, as in the common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65 

The sheriffs have sworn the same oath to protect and Defend the Constitution as do those who wear our nation’s military uniforms. They would be covered if the brought a sitting president before a grand jury.

A body of citizens who listen to evidence of criminal allegations, which are presented by the government, and determines whether there is probable cause to believe the offense was committed. As it is used in federal criminal cases, “the government” refers to the lawyers of the U.S. Attorney’s office who are prosecuting the case. Grand jury proceedings are closed to the public, and the person suspected of having committed the crime is not entitled to be present or have an attorney present.

States are not required to use grand juries, but the federal government must do so under the Constitution.

Members of congress have failed in their oaths to do so, it would seem time to impeach Obama or drag him away in chains. 

He is unfit for command and the world would much safer with him in exile, to perhaps Kenya, Cuba or the Dominican Republic.

His word means nothing on the world stage as he is considered a paper tiger among our allies and foes alike. 

When the door to the White House finally hits him the butt, oh well, it won’t come close to the shared misery he has put upon all Americans with is destructive policies.

It is obviously clear, Obama is a threat not only to the American people. He is destabilizing the United States every way he can. He did this paying for Treyvon protest trying to start race wars as one example. He is a threat to world peace.

Entire article below.

Continue reading

Seattle officials call for ban on ‘potentially offensive’ language


Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

The author on the nonsense below, Elliott Bronstein, Seattle’s Office for Civil Rights, is long on verbage and short on knowledge of the United States Constitution.

Can’t use the matter “Citizen or brown bag.”  See video here. 



I refer him to the Supremacy Clause which of course makes all in place U.S. Constitutional law superior to state law and would in fact invalidate them.

Our ” Founding Fathers” saved us from the ignorant folks of Seattle and elsewher.  This about it, would you trust anyone that came up with such a notion to determine that which is potentially offensive? 

Liberals, Socialists and Marxists like Obama and his minions offend the shit out of me, every thing they say: would that allow me to potentially ban them?


Government workers in the city of Seattle have been advised that the terms “citizen” and “brown bag” are potentially offensive and may no longer be used in official documents and discussions.

KOMO-TV reports that the city’s Office of Civil Rights instructed city workers in a recent internal memo to avoid using the words because some may find them offensive.

“Luckily, we’ve got options.”

– Elliott Bronstein, Seattle’s Office for Civil Rights

“Luckily, we’ve got options,” Elliott Bronstein of the Office for Civil Rights wrote in the memo obtained by the station. “For ‘citizens,’ how about ‘residents?'” 

In an interview with Seattle’s KIRO Radio, Bronstein said the term “brown bag” has been used historically as a way to judge skin color. 

“For a lot of particularly African-American community members, the phrase brown bag does bring up associations with the past when a brown bag was actually used, I understand, to determine if people’s skin color was light enough to allow admission to an event or to come into a party that was being held in a private home,” Bronstein said.  More Below.

Continue reading

In clear violation of the United States Constitution


Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

Funny thing about the U.S. Constitution, fail to use it you lose it and that is exactly what the left-wing nut jobs like Mario Cuomo are hoping that we do. 


We are not Britain, or Australia, We the People are from the genes of those who fought for liberty.  We understand freedom isn’t free.  They want to take our guns?  It will mean war, it’s that simple.

I completely disagree with the President of the New York Rifle  and Pistol Association’s admonition; “We are lawful and legal citizens of New York state and we always obey the law,” association President Tom King said. “It’s as simple as that.”  To that I say Mulon Labe.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

New Yorks Assault Weapon Registration Begins Today

The Liberty Crier


Post image for New Yorks Assault Weapon Registration Begins

Key measures of New York’s tough new gun law kicked in Monday, with owners of firearms now reclassified as assault weapons required to start registering the firearms and new limits on the number of bullets allowed in magazines.

As the new provisions took effect, New York’s affiliate of the National Rifle Association planned to file a court request for a federal injunction to immediate halt to the magazine limit.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo calls those and other provisions in the state’s new gun law common sense while dismissing criticisms he says come from “extreme fringe conservatives” who claim the government has no right to regulate guns.

Entire article below.

Continue reading

Veteran Stands Up For 2nd Amendment At Chicago Anti-Gun Forum


Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

It’s insightful to listen to a member of the military who has served his country in combat interact with a group of people interested in passing legislation that would prohibit carrying a concealed weapon.

Their differences on how they interpret the constitution are oh so predictable.


A military veteran delivered a passionate defense of the Second Amendment at a Chicago-area anti-gun “forum” Sunday, saying he went to war to protect all Americans’ inalienable rights, including the right to bear arms. He also argued the threat of “tyranny” is still just as real as it was in the past.

Progressives don’t seem to get that Obama by his daily moves and under the cover of darkness moves has a game plan for the rest of us. 

It clearly doesn’t compute for them that with out the 2nd Amendment they can say goodbye to the First. 

In his view of America We the People become serfs on Uncle Sam’s Plantation.

I choose freedom!

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

Liberal Amnesia


Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist and Patriot.

Police Wonder If They’ll Need To Confiscate Assault Weapons In Event Of Ban.

Perhaps our friends of the liberal persuasion have forgotten that during the similar assault weapons, which they weren’t enacted by the Clinton administration it had absolutely no effect on the shooting at Columbine.


Derange killers don’t need their names memorialized

This isn’t going to happen, legislation being considered allow those that have so-called assault weapons to be grandfathered in and to keep them. 


Yep no drugs in our schools just look at the sign for proof.

Doing simple math if this were to ever become an eventuality, how many police are there compared with the over 300 million weapons? 

Another trumped up story to deflect for serious issues like bringing Hillary and Obama to justice over Benghazi.



gun rights

H/T The Liberty Cryer

…and we, the people, should be wondering what we’re going to do if the government engages in an illegal and unconstitutional gun grab.

Many say this is a proverbial line in the sand and they will defend their guns rights with their guns and with their lives.

What about you?  If the government engages in an illegal gun grab do believe Americans should fight against the government?  Or should they give up their guns?

Click here to vote in our poll on whether the free people of this land should fight or surrender in the face of a Government gun grab.

Police Wonder If They’ll Need To Confiscate Assault Weapons In Event Of Ban [continued]

Where will you personally draw the line on protecting the Second Amendment?

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist and Patriot.

There can be little doubt that Obama sees himself above the law and has little use for the United States Constitution.

At this point we have little to fear about Hillary and her signing a U.N. Gun Ban Treaty.  Use a little logic here, if she could have pulled this off, she would have.

It is only a matter of time until he crosses the proverbial line in the sand that we the people will have had enough.

Perhaps he sees himself as an emperor or a modern-day dictator.  The fact remains, any treaties he or his minions sign be they by proclamation or executive order are null and void.  The proof to my suggestion can be found here in the U.S. Constitution.

To which the reader may choose to retort, but Obama will just call the 2nd Amendment null and void.  To do so would be a declaration of war on We the People, a war he and his socialists can and will not win.

Mark Alexander

American Patriots and Guns

All Patriots Are Obligated to Be Armed and Ready

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” –Joseph Story

On the most recent “Black Friday,” the day after Thanksgiving, which has become the biggest commercial sales day of the year, despite the continuing economic decline, there were record sales in one notable product category: Guns.
According to Stephen Fischer, director of the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, “NICS experienced its highest number of transactions processed since system inception [in 1998], with 154,873, which is nearly 20 percent over the 129,166 processed on Black Friday 2011.” This year’s total checks will undoubtedly beat last year’s record of 16.4 million.

Continue reading

The NY Times Arrogant Attempt to Discard the US Constitution

H/T THE LID: Exploring theories of political relativity

Commentary by Jim Campbell

In anexcellent article written by “Yid from the Lid” in January, 2011. He nails the NY Times for what it is, the United States version of Pravda.  One must wonder how their writers can comment upon concepts and ideology they cannot fathom? Additionally how can the discard the U.S. Constitution when they have little clue what it represents?

Read by those who believe they are among the elite and for the most part think they are directing our lives, it is also read my more reasoned individuals who enjoy taking the pulse of those who choose to live in the bubble of their alternative universe.

The primary value of the NY Times is house breaking a new puppy when put on the floor. 

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m JC. and I approve this message.

The empty gestures are officially intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate — presumably to the Republicans’ Tea Party supporters — that things are about to be done very differently. But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation’s foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?

As the unofficial, official Newspaper of the progressive movement, the NY Times has a core audience to placate, but who would think that they would go out of their way to alienate the rest of their readership. But that’s exactly what they did in an editorial called “Pomp, and Little Circumstance”, which rebukes the GOP for the attempt to repeal Obamacare, allowing John Boehner to swear his staff in early and most startling, for wasting the people’s time by starting off the 112th Congress with a reading of the United States Constitution.

The Times doesn’t even understand what the Constitution is all about, it is not just a “foundational document,” it is the rule book; the guide for the way our U.S. Government is supposed to work.  The oath that members of Congress take as part of their swearing-in ceremony pledges their allegiance to the Constitution as a their priority. ( More below)

“A Conspiracy of Congress”


by Neil Turner

The Post & Email

Why would anyone in the White House claim a forgery as a copy of his original birth record? Why is Congress pretending that a crime has not been committed?

(Jul. 12, 2011) — This is to notify you of a ‘high Crime’ criminal act that was recently performed (and is still ongoing to date) in plain sight before all of America, and that it now becomes incumbent upon every American Citizen so notified herewith that they have a civic duty to pursue prosecution of this crime, lest they themselves be chargeable with 18 USC Sec. 1028, Part I, Chapter 1, Section 4: Misprision of Felony.

Meet the future Humpty Dumpty

On April 27, 2011, the person commonly known as (but without any proof thereof) Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro), did, with malice and aforethought, publicly display on the official White House website, a blatantly forged document that he claimed to be a copy of his Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth – in order to obtain and maintain his continued employment within our Federal Government.

One of the crimes (among others) enabled by that forgery is Mispersonization of Identity – a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison. And that same punishment would apply to all those who have aided and abetted in the commission of just this crime alone.

Continue reading