Prosecute the President

Obama_Angry_Evil_Eyed_30To order Ben Shapiro’s new book, “The People Vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration,” click here.

President Barack Obama believes he is above the law.

That’s because he is.

This week alone, Obama announced that he would unilaterally change student loan rules, allowing borrowers to avoid paying off more of their debt; he signaled that he would continue his non-enforcement of immigration law, even as thousands of children cross the border; he defended his non-disclosure of a terrorist swap to Congress.

And, he said, more such actions were in the offing. “I will keep doing whatever I can without Congress,” Obama explained.

This is not just executive overreach. In many cases, Obama’s exercise of authoritarian power is criminal. His executive branch is responsible for violations of the Arms Export Control Act in shipping weapons to Syria, the Espionage Act in Libya, and IRS law with regard to the targeting of conservative groups. His executive branch is guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Benghazi and in the Fast and Furious scandal, and bribery in its allocation of waivers in Obamacare and tax dollars in its stimulus spending. His administration is guilty of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

And yet nothing is done.

Impeachment, which has been suggested as a solution by many, is a non-starter. In the entire history of the republic, the House has impeached just 19 officials, and just eight were actually removed from office after Senate trial. Impeachment is a political solution to a criminal problem — and politicians are far too fearful of blowback to use it as a tool in upholding law.

Thanks to presidential immunity and executive control of the Justice Department, there are no consequences to executive branch lawbreaking. And when it comes to presidential lawbreaking, the sitting president could literally strangle someone to death on national television and meet with no consequences.

As Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School has written, “a sitting President is constitutionally immune from ordinary criminal prosecution — state or federal.”
So what can we do? We can tell Congress to delegate its power to check the executive branch. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act creates a broad capacity for prosecution of criminal conspiracies; it also provides for civil lawsuits against such conspiracies, turning American citizens into, as the Supreme Court puts it, “‘private attorneys general’ on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate.” Minor changes to the law should allow citizens to sue federal officials within the executive branch under RICO, unmasking criminal enterprises within the Obama administration and future administrations.

The checks and balances of the Constitution have failed. The result has been, for a century, the nearly unchecked growth of the power of the executive branch. That growth has created an executive tyranny, unanswerable and inescapable under law. Our legislators have proved themselves too cowardly to fight back using the tools at their disposal. They are obviously happy delegating their power to the executive branch. Now it’s time for them to delegate their power to the people.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • AlexanderGofen

    The picture that your painted here Mr. Shapiro, is realistic but grossly incomplete. Not only Obama’s exercise of authoritarian power is criminal and many of his actions amount to high crimes. You (and Frontpage) keep evading to mention the most grotesque aspects of the “failure of checks and balances of the Constitution” in this nation: The illegitimacy and thievery of the White House resident with uncertain names Barak-Barry Obama-Soetoro-Soebarakch-Bounel assisted with all parties and legislature. Indeed, the full prosecution of all accomplices is absolutely required, initiated by we the people. The best such example was the people’s trial in 2010 by Pastor James David Manning. However your own taboo on the topic makes this article rather a hypocrisy. Before any people prosecution, first everybody must scream out the truth.

    Meanwhile this nation exemplifies the only occasion in the history when such a tremendous 2008/2012 double coup had happened with FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, AND MANY OTHER FREEDOMS still in place, YET NOT USED! Happened without any brutal suppression, without a shot fired, and without anybody murdered (except alas Hawaii’s Health boss and Passport clerk of the State Dept.) We therefore exemplify the extreme case of baseness and human misery (in a nation which was a beacon of humanity).

    • Brucew56

      @AlexanderG…it’s because only about 20% of the population are even aware of what’s taking place in America.

      • 95Theses

        Oh, so true.

        Before I retired I formulated a very simple test to evaluate the political attentiveness of my liberal coworkers. I put to these dues-paying union members one question: could they tell me who the U.S. senators were for our state. Always – and I mean every time – most could barely name even a single senator, and would often cite the governor (and sometimes it was a former governor!) when attempting to guess what ought to be an easy question to a simple answer … assuming one is paying attention.

        When they couldn’t cough up the right answers – and they
        couldn’t help hiding their sheepishness for their inability to do so – I would usually say something on the order of ‘So why should I continue to have a conversation with someone who by their own admission is politically ignorant of the most basic knowledge of who they voted for?

        That was a conversation-stopper. And, no, I was not very popular with my leftist coworkers. I realize that some folks may think that that is too abrasive, but I no longer have the patience to engage in debates with an opponent who refuses to concede any point so long as they are True Believers committed to following the party line, even if they were ordered to walk off a cliff … say, much like some of the many interloping trolls who invade the FrontPage comment page.


        • phoebeintheforest


          • JoanneSchoturd

            just before I
            looked at the receipt ov $8130 , I didn’t believe that my sister woz like
            actualy bringing in money part-time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunts
            neighbour has been doing this 4 only about 22 months and at present repayed the
            mortgage on their appartment and bought themselves a Chrysler . see here M­o­n­e­y­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

          • 95Theses

            Thanks. I’m not so sure that it merits brilliancy, but it remains a time-saving tactic I still use (and who wants to waste time?) to truncate discussions with opinionated pretenders.

        • Atikva

          What about the 300.000 votes in favor of democrat CA State Senator Leland Yee during the recent primaries, in spite his having dropped off the race due to his indictment for gun running and corruption?

          What does it say about democrats’ grasp of reality?

          Unless, of course, these votes are the result of a sloppy job by some community organizers promoting electoral fraud.

          • 95Theses

            Part of the problem is that most people would rather watch ESPN than C-SPAN. I wish I could remember when, where and who said it — as best as I can recall it was either David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin — but they were citing the fact that only about 2% of the public actually watch C-SPAN … and most of them were Conservatives. And not only that, most of the call-ins to C-SPAN were Conservatives. So Lamb and co. had to create separate (but unequal) phone lines for Conservatives and Liberals (and later “Independents” – so-called) which continues to give the misimpression that C-SPAN’s viewership is an accurate demographic representation, when the truth is that Conservatives are much, much more informed than their Liberal counterparts.

            Unfortunately, Democrats leaders like and want to keep it that way … for reasons that are obvious.

          • Atikva

            I haven’t watched “the news” on TV for years, except as an additional source of information when something big happens. We have internet now, we can pick up our sources, compare and analyse, do research on any given topic before forming an opinion.

            And believe it or not, there are also BOOKS to be read that can teach us the kind of History we never learnt in school.

            The papers, then TV, have been our only sources of information for too long, it is high time to go somewhere else, separate the wheat from the chaff and stop the government from indoctrinating us.

        • Dolly


          • 95Theses

            Thanks. And try it out on your liberal friends. Results are
            practically guaranteed! Just one caveat: brush up on a few other things, e.g., the names of your own State Secretary, Treasurer, and Lieutenant Governor (ha! even the Governor while you’re at it); the Presidential Line of Succession (and why takes the order it does) … in other words, basic things the every Conservative should know (orrrrr … know the answers – and then some – before asking the questions.)


          • Dolly

            I sure will, Thesis!! That won’t be too hard to do …you know, they’re everywhere!! The “blind sheep” being led to slaughter.

          • 95Theses

            Incidentally, it’s Theses – as in Martin Luther’s 95. Minus the occasional (and regrettable) anti-Semitism.

          • Dolly


        • Debbie G

          Two weeks ago I told a co-worker I was part of the Tea Party movement. She said, “What’s that?”

          • BagLady

            Oh dear, not a follower of the drill-baby-drill hockey mom surely. What has become of the lady? Haven’t seen her in the news lately.

          • Debbie G

            Huh? My post was about uninformed people. What’s yours about?

      • Dolly


    • Susannah Fedders

      Alex, wait till the the Bo….S start hitting the U.S. they will find out real fast. People just don’t think it can’t happen in U.S.

  • Dyer’s Eve

    When the leader of any country is above the law, you move to dictatorship by definition.

    • Guest

      That plus the fact that the Left has continually asserted that the Constitution is an anachronistic relic and an annoying impediment to creating a Brave New Collectivist World. And after decades of dumbing down in our Federal Indoctrination Centers (aka public schools) No one even knows what the Constitution protects them from or that it even exists.

    • BagLady

      That about sums up most every country outside New Zealand and a few Northern European countries. Only those of a darker hue — Charles Taylor — will languish in jail for their crimes. The rest — Tony Blair — will go on to amass great fortunes.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Ben you and others like you are the reason this Fraud in Chief is still in office wrecking this country at every turn. You were given enough evidence to prove that Obama used fraudulent documents that enabled him to rise to power. You chose to ignore the SCANDAL. Breitbart fired one of their best investigative journalist when he declared that the BIRTHERS were 100% right in their accusations. Breitbart not only ignored him, they let him go. It is not just you Ben but most of those contributing to Frontpage are also being totally dishonest in not fully investigating the fraud and crimes stacked up in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office that was gathered by his lead CRIMINAL investigator Lt. Mike Zullo. Can you tell the folks that comment here why you refuse to expose the fraud?

    • 95Theses

      Actually, I think that Shapiro has written a compelling article, but I do agree with you on this point, because calling someone a Birther is no
      different in effect than labeling someone a racist. Just paint someone as a Birther and all debate ends. And that’s the point. There will be no debate so long as that tactic will be employed because its purpose is to silence debate. I say, can we please calm down and at least look at the evidence first? What possible harm could come from that?

      Some of the same Conservatives who cheered when Dan Rather was outed by bloggers over the superscript flaw in his mission to smear George Bush’s military record became strangely quiet when bloggers have applied the same scrutiny to Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate.

      I think that if an elected official (or candidate) spends millions of dollars in an effort to resist releasing for public consumption documents that prove one’s citizenship that alone should be more than sufficient to more than pique the curiosity of we Doubters (now there’s a label I can live with) who smell a rat. Add to that the other indisputably damning circumstantial evidence, e.g., claiming to be a foreign aid student, using a wholly different name (Barry Soetoro), et al.

      So yes, if these questions had been investigated with more rigor in the first place, maybe we wouldn’t be were we are today. And now we are paying the piper. Way to go!

      • Americana

        I say if someone self-identifies as a Birther or a Truther, let the DEBATE begin. May the best forged documents win!

        • 95Theses

          Swell. I’m all for open debate about any proposition, no matter how outrageous it may at first blush strike us. That includes the theories (CONSPIRATORIAL OR NOT) of 9-11 Truthers; Carbon Pollution — and the ever-modulating naming conventions for it: nee Climate Disruption, nee Climate Change, nee Global Warming, nee Global Cooling; Birth Certificate Doubters; Intelligent Design / Young Earth Creationism; Holocaust Deniers; the Illuminati and the New World Order; HIV/AIDS denialism; water fluoridation … and, hey, I’m just warming up – just not globally.

          But — BUT — these debates will gain no traction so long as the silencing techniques of derogatory labeling sully the arguments the proponents of any of the above theories advance to their thesis. A fair hearing of all viewpoints requires that participants in these debates must be pre-committed to foreswearing the use of impertinent or false rhetorical mischaracterizations.

          I’m no dreamer, because human nature being what it is, I don’t foresee polite intercourse happening anytime soon … particularly in today’s hostile political environment.

          • WW4

            There’s a key difference between those who argue for, say, anthropomorphic climate change, Clinton’s infidelity, Obama’s incompetence during Benghazi–and those who argue for 9/11 conspiracy, Obama’s true birth circumstances, Creationism, New World Order, etc.

            The ones who argue for Clinton’s infidelity, Obama’s incompetence, and anthropomorphic global warming have EVIDENCE on their side.

            The ones who argue for the rest have a feeling they want to express and dress it in conspiracies.

            That these have failed to present evidence, and have usually allowed themselves to be humiliated by lack of evidence yet still persist in delusion–they have not earned, and sometimes lost, the right to be taken seriously.

            The one exception is those who don’t accept that man has caused climate change. Though currently research suggests otherwise, these skeptics have been able in a few cases to demonstrate faulty methodologies or conclusions. They deserve the respect of a debate, even if most of the high profile skeptics aren’t scientists.

            The others have all proven themselves fools. Creationists have been proven liars in court to make their case. Still their ignorance persists, encouraged by cynics and opportunists, and its persistence creates the illusion of validity.

          • 95Theses

            Congratulations! You just violated the rules of civility
            that I just roughly outlined. Specifically, you refer to Creationists as liars. I take it from that that you are well-versed in troll-craft.

            I don’t debate with trolls (um, in this instance that would
            be YOU) because, as I have said so many, many times before, that — besides the fact that they refuse to concede a point — I refuse to encourage interlopers who apparently are unable to have a life outside the blogosphere and therefore need to validate their existence only by creating disruption on websites (like FrontPage).

            But since so many people – including trolls like you – have a poorly understood grasp of what the term ‘Creationist’ or ‘Creationism’ means, at no charge I will help them (and you) out by stating what should be obvious. Viz., that if one believes in God (as do 90+% of Americans), then by definition they believe in a Creator. (Hey, look! That’s two-thirds of a syllogism!) Ergo, anyone who believes in God is, strictly speaking, a Creationist. But, of course, there’s the rub … because what is meant by that term is found in the context. Neo-Darwinists play games with the term ‘Creationist / Creationism’ on the unsuspecting and naïve (and I refer to the latter kindly, since – unlike the former – there is no malice in their hearts) by employing the fallacy of equivocation. What is more, Neo-Darwinists are well aware of the deception they are practicing. I know this from gobs of personal experience.

            This is not the forum for debating the merits of each view
            (and there is a wide variance of perspectives amongst those of us who believe in God – i.e., we don’t all hold to a 6-day special Creation view of origins, which happens to be the favorite caricature that Neo-Darwinists love to use), my only point is that Darwinists (and trolls!) are, lamentably, incapable of civil discourse. The same holds for Global Warming, or Birth Certificate Doubters, or 9-11 Truthers, or HIV/AIDS deniers, etc., etc., etc.

            So thanks! for proving my point. Troll.

      • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

        I were my label proudly with bumper stickers and T-Shirts proclaiming my birtherism. Just as the Swift Boat Veterans saved us from John (Hanoi) Kerry so will the Birthers eventually save us from this Fraud in Chief. Obama is about to get BIRTHERED! Three cheers for Arpaio and Zullo and all those who worked with them and for them. It is a damn shame that Shapiro and Frontpage are missing the biggest scandal ever to hit this country,

        • WW4

          Yes, three cheers for you and your fellow morons who have had SEVEN YEARS to investigate. Do you guys not know any real investigators/attorneys? You have about one year left to “save us” from Obama. Can’t wait for your “revelations,” you bozos have implied “it’s all gonna come out” for about six years, now.

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll.

    • BagLady

      Oh yawn. Obama has so many enemies they would have come up with your evidence by now.

      What difference does it make? If he hadn’t been the chosen top salesman to deliver the message for those running things, someone else would have done the same job. ‘They’ saw black as a great advantage and it most certainly was.

      His war cry: “Yes we can” had a message for everyone: fellow blacks, the working classes but, most of all, those who control things.

      • Atikva

        “Those who control things” can’t even control their own meal, maybe not even their bladder. Go play elsewhere.

        • BagLady

          Fat cats don’t get that way without dining well.

          “As Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School has written, “a sitting President is constitutionally immune from ordinary criminal prosecution — state or federal ”

          As commander in chief, Truman had the constitutional authority to order use of the weapon (on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) without congressional approval, which he did.

          ‘Ordinary’ criminal prosecution? Extraordinary criminal acts would be closer to the truth when it comes to your elected Commanders.

          And you want to impeach Obama for having a dodgy passport.

          • 95Theses

            All hail! Ignoramus Gluteus Maximus!
            How’s the trolling going today?

          • Thomas Taylor

            To your statement about Truman. WWII was a congressionally declared war and Truman was the CinC.

          • BagLady

            but he did not ask for permission to obliterate two whole cities in Japan. Probably because he knew it would be vetoed on account of the peace treaty already on the table and matching pens dripping in ink.

            I’m arguing that, whilst I deplore Obama’s policies, there is no comparison in these ‘crimes’.

      • J.B.

        Obama didn’t have a single enemy before the 2008 election and the overwhelming of media spurces have worked 24/7 to protect and support him.

        I notice you ignore all his criminal acts and focus instead on his immunity from prosecution. You are a petty distraction.

        • WW4

          Actually, he had one of the most formidable enemies one could have: Hillary Clinton. You don’t think she would have loved to see him go down? Half his “baggage” came courtesy her campaign.

          • BagLady

            I see she has done quite well since leaving office and now has an enviable value of $115 million.

          • Debbie G

            Out of curiosity, are you a U.S. citizen?

          • BagLady

            Are BagLadies ever ‘citizens’ of a country?

          • Debbie G

            Nice dodge. This was simple question, so what’s the deal? And yes, bag ladies are citizens too.

          • BagLady

            True, but only in their country of origin which may not be their country of residence.

          • Debbie G

            Got it. You are not an American citizen.

          • BagLady

            I proclaimed my Englishness on here a long time back.

          • Debbie G

            Sorry, I must have missed the announcement. But I’ll be sure to remember….

          • BagLady

            There was a time that you could have made a contribution to this site.

            Are you too busy these days to offer anything but one line offences?

            Shame on you, and shame on your literary potential. Your career as a free thinking journalist is over.

          • Debbie G

            Shame on your nonsense. I asked a simple question, and you could not bring yourself to give me a simple answer. You would rather be cute and coy, and your attempt at humor is lacking.

        • BagLady

          We were not discussing his many ‘criminal acts’ but whether he can be impeached for having a phony passport. My argument is that, if this is the best you can come up with, I suggest you wait for the next election.

          Do you have a Mr/Ms Wonderful waiting in the wings to save you all from your nightmares?

      • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

        Go back to bagging. It isn’t that there is no evidence, there is plenty of evidence. There is no platform from which to put that evidence on display. You have not seen ONE person in all of the media and in Congress allow ANYONE to present that evidence to the American people. Because folks like you YAWN we are where we are, living a nightmare.

        • BagLady

          A living nightmare eh? Gosh, and yet there you are tapping away on your laptop with, presumably, food in your belly, a roof over your head and a bed to lie on. All this because the guy happens to be half black.

    • Henry42

      Orly Taitz has invited Shapiro to join her RICO suit. I think he would learn a lot from her about the right RICO to use as opposed to the wrong one he is pushing in his book. Again, there are TWO.

      • 20pizzapies

        Are you serious ? Orly Taitz ? Whose lost in every court she’s ever appeared in ? And in many cases was rejected with prejudice > but you know , now that you mention it , Ben and Orly would make a good pair . I’d pay money to see them present their case in any court of the land .

        • Henry42

          Me too!

          • 20pizzapies

            I don’t know if it’s possible for Shapiro to make a bigger fool of himself than he already has , but I sure would enjoy watching him try . Hey Ben , you go girl , go for it !

  • WillielomanIII

    Legally, Ben presents a credible case…but it does not matter because no prosecution will ever take place. The problem we conservatives have is that our media distribution is very limited. Conservatives need to invade popular culture or we will never again be able to put together long term coalitions to elect presidents, Congresses. Our strategy has not worked and if we continue to do the same thing…we will get the same result…probably the odious Hillary for president and very limited power in Congress. Look, Rush has the largest radio audience around but Obama still won by a wide margin and Harry Reid is still leader of the Senate. Some things need to change

    • 18square

      You can’t change stupid and the liberal socialist democrats are wall-to-wall stupid.
      There is no sanctity in the ballot and the welfare party constituents vote for a living, even the illegal and dead continue voting liberal socialist democrat.
      The Iraqis have it right.
      Everyone shows up at the polling place and leaves with a purple thumb.
      If you cannot make it to the polls then you don’t vote.
      There should be no mechanical, electromechanical or electronic balloting either.
      The Mexican government has it right with their nationwide voter identification cards and a bureau to handle it.
      The liberal socialist democrats continue to be the party of corruption with their ‘racist’ bullsheit regarding everyone having picture identification cards to vote.
      Not that I, or anyone else, should give a good sheit about what the rest of the world thinks of the US voting debacle, but they laugh at the insanity of the liberal socialist democrat party in the US.

    • BagLady

      Conservatives need to invade popular culture….”

      What do you mean by “popular culture”? The majority? Do you advocate an ‘unpopular’ culture be foisted on the plebs?

      • J.B.

        He means the strangle hold the minority left has on popular culture. Return it to the majority.

    • reader

      Yeah, like the consultants of karl rove’s kind and the nominees. How’s that for an idea?

      • Charles Martel

        Not sure what you are implying. I wouldn’t count the despicable Rove as a conservative.

        • reader

          There’s nothing to imply: Obama is in the office first and foremost due to the rinos running the Republican Party. They’re the ones backing feckless nominees and fighting conservatives with much more vigor than they do fight Democrats. There’s only one way to change it: cleanse the Republican Party. Pick them one Eric Kantor at at time.

    • Charles Martel

      The problem is most conservatives want the same thing as liberals only a little slower move towards those goals. Here is a good example. We love immigrants as long as they come here legally. We are all immigrants. People totally lose sight of the fact that we were mostly homogeneous until the flood gates of immigration were opened in the 60’s. The new conservatives say they love diversity as long as it is legal. Diversity is our strength. When has people’s differences ever been a strength? A people divided cannot stand long. You import a third world, you get a third world.

      Embrace the traditional conservatism and live with the names hurled your way or be buried under the onslaught of Islam and third world peoples who have so destroyed their countries that they come running to this one to save them only to bring their culture of oppression and criminality with them.

      • Jeff Ludwig

        Some very good points here Mr. Martel.


        Substitute “Establishment Republicans” for “conservatives” in your first sentence and I would agree with you. The only real Conservatives are those who embrace what you call “traditional conservatism,” that is, they who desire to conserve the values that made America great.

  • Rdlake

    The natives & anarchists would want nothing more than an opportunity to rage, burn & loot.

  • Rick

    I have been waiting for a few years to see Obama sign a decree to abolish the 2 term presidential rule. Not sure it will happen, but I’m sure it has been discussed in the WH.


      Something will happen to cancel the election. Mark my words.

      • mollysdad

        It’ll be when Obama declares himself to be Emir Barack Hussein, Commander of the Faithful, Destroyer of the Infidel.

      • 20pizzapies

        I will mark your words…. till Nov .9 , 2016 when Clinton gets elected .

    • BagLady

      The Democrats have Hillary in the wings so I doubt they’ll go for anything so drastic. Perhaps she’ll make him Secretary of State so he can continue with his foreign policy while she handles finance.

    • 20pizzapies

      yea you must have been a fly on the wall huh ? Schmuck .

  • Texas Patriot

    If the Republican “brain trust” thinks the American people are even remotely on board with the idea of impeaching President Obama, they are out of their mind. in fact, impeaching Obama could be the one thing that would absolutely insure a Clinton Steamroller in 2016. Then again, wrecking the Baathist army apparatus in Iraq was the only imaginable way for Islamic radicals to take over. So in a way perhaps impeaching Obama does make sense. But whose side is the Republican Party on?

    • reader

      You’re a commie troll – stupid enough even not to change nick after being busted a few times over. Keep trying.

    • AlexanderGofen

      Whose side is the Republican Party on? Repoobs are accomplices of the 2008/2012 double coup, who betrayed their duty as an opposition party. The same is true for Tea baggers. We have no organized opposition.

    • Charles Martel

      You made a good and honest point whether intentional or not. Most people just want their Obama phones and whatever else they can get. Others are happy as long as their favorite sports team is winning. A great deal of society is simply too stupid or uneducated to understand what is happening. Most only care how they feel today and have little ability to anticipate future consequences of their current action or enaction. This is what we get when we have no minimum standards of intelligence and basic understanding of human civilization before people are given the right to vote.

      Whose side are the republicans on? The same side as the democrats. They are all on the side of whoever has the most money to provide them.

      • Texas Patriot

        We’re not going to be making any changes in the right of every American citizen (not a felon) to cast his or her vote for whatever candidate he or she wants to vote for. What we can do something about is lifting our educational system out of the gutter of being the worst in the industrialized world.

        • WW4

          We also have some people who actually would be capable leaders who are forced to spend their time in office electioneering. The legislating part–their job–is outsourced. Then they’ll demagogue a bill, whether that bill actually solves a problem of just adds a new layer of red tape–never having read it.

          No question it is OUR responsibility to be on top of what’s happening, but it’s also unfair to condescend to people who work all day and raise kids and expect them to be political junkies if they’re not so inclined. In prinicple, I think election reforms tend to invite free speech issues; but practically speaking there’s a common sense to such measures.

        • J.B.

          How? With Commie Core?

      • truebearing

        You have deftly exposed the fault line running through this democratic republic. When the majority becomes uneducated and immoral, democracy fails. We have morons voting who can’t spell “cat.” If a democratic republic has any hope of surviving, it has to require voters to qualify, just like we do for a driver’s license.

        The other thing that I feel is essential is to strengthen the immune system of our constitution so that adherents of ideologies that are hostile to our way of life, economic philosophy, and the constitution itself, are banned from holding office. Marxists and Muslims openly state their seditious intent with impunity. They should be unceremoniously be thrown out of the country or shot, depending on how much damage they have caused. They are admitted revolutionaries which necessarily means sworn enemies of the US.

    • J.B.

      Why would America elect Hillary in 2016 if Obama were to get impeached? Even his artificial popularity ratings are dismally low. If he were impeaced, they would plummet down to the level of leftwing fanatics only.

  • SuzyQ
  • DontMessWithAmerica

    I keep repeating – people get what they’ll accept. When enough Americans will become outraged – and they are all overdue – and take to the streets, the outraged enlisted men will come to the White House to lead off this outlaw in shackles and America will be on its way to Democracy again. How I envy the Egyptians who had the resolve and acted.

  • AntiLeftist

    Good luck with the RICO thing. Our federal judiciary is so corrupt, any RICO suit will only result in the court itself becoming part of the racket.

    • Henry42

      You are right. Shapiro doesn’t know there are two types of RICO and he is pushing the wrong one.

  • USARetired

    And he is doing all this illegal activity while Congress is sitting on their thumbs, knowing he is in this Country illegally, and has an agenda of ‘Destruction to America;!

    We cannot allow ‘Barry’ the Illegal Bum to remain in office full term!

  • Juice

    I think our lawmakers are afraid to go after BO because they are afraid someone will come after them.

  • johnnywood

    I am amazed that Congress has stood idly by and watched Obummer usurp their authority thus rendering them irrelevant. What a joke this government has become.


    Using the RICO statutes is an interesting idea, but there are some obvious problems:
    1. Obama is immune to civil suits as well as criminal prosecutions while serving as President. Yes, there are some who don’t agree, but it’s extremely unlikely a Federal Court will allow such a suit to go forward while Obama is still in office.

    2. Abuse of the RICO statutes by Democrats in the future is guaranteed – in fact, they’ve already done it! (Something Shapiro might not remember – I believe the Democrats’ case against Republicans was dismissed). In fact, abusing the criminal law to harass Republicans is becoming a technique used by Democrats with alarming frequency, and we must be careful not to descend to their level.

    I think Shapiro’s idea of using lawsuits is good, and in fact some are ongoing. We should sue any of Obama’s subordinates necessary where he’s breaking the law, and we might well win some of these cases. An invasion of privacy lawsuit would seem a real possibility if IRS officials leaked confidential taxpayer information.

    It’s true that impeachment is unlikely even if Republicans retake the Senate in November because they won’t have the 2/3 majority necessary to convict him. But the bigger problem is that Republicans are not making the case against Obama’s lawlessness on a daily basis, and there is no substitute for doing so. We need Conservatives in place of the current crop of Establishment-men, Conservatives who will fight against Obama. And we need to regain the Presidency so that the Obama-gang may be prosecuted for its many crimes once Obama finally leaves office.

    There are some other possibilities, like open rebellion in Republican-led states, but the Party clearly isn’t ready for that yet. Certainly the Constitution will have to be amended at some point to give the people themselves more of a check on the Federal Government, such as the ability for 1/4 plus 1 state to nullify Federal acts on Constitutional grounds. But for the kind of malfeasance in office we see from Barry Hussein Obama, impeachment is still the only real remedy as long as he remains in office, along with various Federal lawsuits to control the executive branch agencies.

  • WW4

    Prosecute. Sue. Impeach. How about a recall election? That was the dimwitted idea democrats had for Scott Walker.

    How about this? Concentrate on winning elections, not throwing time and tax dollars tilting at the windmills Shapiro lays out (Shapiro at least has the sense to understand impeachment is politically a non-starter). Sure, go ahead, prosecute–and watch how fast they’ll bring out Bush Administration ties to those things. Watch how fast they’ll show congressional Republicans arguing for the very things that are supposed to have been illegal. Watch as the defense shows executive precedents from every modern administration.

    That’s OK, because we all know this is just impotent steam being blown off, and not a serious proposal. Right?

    How about projecting optimism and confidence instead of paranoia and victimhood? It’s easy to see what Republicans are against–(it starts with an “O” and ends with a “bama”–whatever it does, just argue the opposite). Anyone know what today’s Republican party stands for?

    It may just be me, but I think Americans are looking for leadership and a plan for the future. If you really think Americans want more dog-and-pony show hearings designed to hold a twice elected, reasonably popular president “accountable” for things most people don’t care about, well, good luck with that.

  • USARetired

    The only acceptable method of removal and prosecution is to arrest and prosecute! A guilty verdict also nullifies all Obama has done and signed since taking office, This is most important, and absolutely not what Congress wants, because it would mean they would need to go to work for a change!
    If Congress wishes, Obama is easy to take out of office, and they know it, He is an illegal aien, in office illegally! He has no legal or legitimate U.S. Documents, His SSN is stolen, and it is the only one he posseses! He is an illegal alien Bum, intent on destroying America!

  • dougjmiller

    Ben, you are right. But does the Congress have the courage and the votes to impeach the traitor in the White House. I hope and pray they do. Obama is working hard to destroy America. We need their help to rescue our great nation.

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    I suggest Andrew McCarthy’s new book

    Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment


    Enabling Iran’s Nuclear Program while Vowing to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons

    The president and his subordinates have engaged in diplomatic negotiations that facilitate Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons despite his oft-repeated public pledge that the United States, under his leadership, would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Furthermore, he and his administration have concealed from the American people an agreement with the Iranian government – a longtime, avowed enemy of the American people – about how a “Plan of Action” enabling Iran to enrich uranium will be implemented.

    Having turned a deaf ear to the Iranian people in 2009 when they were being crushed while attempting to rise up against their totalitarian regime – the leading state sponsor of jihadist terror – President Obama reached out in 2013 to the Iran’s regime new front man, President Hassan Rouhani.

    Despite numerous prior public assurances that the United States, under his leadership, would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the president and his subordinates have entered an “interim” agreement with the Iranian regime that enables Iran to continue enriching uranium. The express concession that Iran may enrich uranium guts years of UN Security Council resolutions against Iran’s uranium enrichment activities. It further concedes the Iranian government’s claimed right to enrich uranium.

    The Iranian government aptly regards this agreement as a “surrender” by the United States. Rouhani publicly boasted in a tweet that “world powers surrendered to Iranian nation’s will.” Moreover, Iran’s foreign minister insists that, contrary to Obama administration claims, the regime “did not agree to dismantle anything” in its nuclear or ballistic program.

    In November 2013, the president and his subordinates and the administrations of five other major nations, struck a “Joint Plan of Action” with Iran, which was released publicly. But the president and his subordinates also agreed to a side deal with Iran regarding how the “Joint Plan of Action” would be implemented. The Iranians maintain that if the people want to know what the side deal actually says, they should read the text. The president and his subordinates, however, have refused to publish the text to the American people – releasing only a “summary,” which the Iranian maintain is inaccurate. It is known that Iran was required to make no concessions regarding is promotion of revolutionary jihadist terror – the chief reason why it its acquiring nuclear weapons is not acceptable.

  • RetiredMilitarytoo

    Let’s stop calling Obama “America’s First Black President”… let’s refer to him as “America’s First Half White President”. This would make impeachment much easier.

  • Henry42

    Has Ben Shapiro been reading a fellow Breitbart contributor’s website and email
    blasts? She has been reporting on RICO for over a year. He should have read her reporting more closely. He’s not pushing the right RICO. There are TWO. You don’t need to amend the law-which won’t happen. If you don’t know the difference you are wasting everybody’s time and giving them false hope.

    RICO Tool Kit: How to hold Washington accountable using the Racketeer
    Influence & Corrupt Organizations Act – June 17, 2013

    RICO: How to Stop the Obama Administration Crime Wave – June 10, 2013

    A Warning to Public Servants in the Obama Administration: It’s RICO time! –
    June 11, 2013

    Daily Caller: RICO: The real way to hold the IRS accountable – July 23,

    VA Hospitals Scandal. RICO lawsuits for damages … VIDEO

  • 20pizzapies

    That’s a good one Ben use RICO against the POTUS . When is your campaign starting ?