Is There a Serious Discussion about Impeachment?

[nodoginnafight]

Jeremiah - unfortunately many of those issues can be answered in the affirmative without any law being broken. POTUS is legally empowered to make many decision as chief law enforcement, commander in chief, etc...

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Both Barry and Hillary and some of their assorted butt lickers outright lied their asses off to the American people. Repeatedly in some cases.

Unfortunately, even if true that doesn't appear to be a crime. And it is all to common. Bush lied about Pat Tilman and Jessica Lynch. Clinton lied about Monica (under oath too - a more serious legal matter). Bush senior (read my lips, etc...), Reagan lied.

In fact, I'm having a hard time coming up with a president who has not lied to the American people. Never should be excused or condoned imho. But I've never seen one impeached for lying to the American people.

You won't have to. According to the information going out from Impeach Obama Campaign ? To Save America there are 12 ways to impeach him right now. That's right. He should have been impeached already. Better late than never.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Unless it can be proven he knew about it happening I don't think it's impeachable is it?

If it's proven he knew then yes his ass should be impeached.

If he knew what was happening? What would he have to know about in order for it to be a criminal offense?

Thought I was responding to something about the IRS deal, obviously I misread something lol

LOL - no sweat. But if you believe Obama commited illegal acts in relation to the IRS deal - then I believe that is fair game under the "impeachment" heading.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Both Barry and Hillary and some of their assorted butt lickers outright lied their asses off to the American people. Repeatedly in some cases.

Unfortunately, even if true that doesn't appear to be a crime. And it is all to common. Bush lied about Pat Tilman and Jessica Lynch. Clinton lied about Monica (under oath too - a more serious legal matter). Bush senior (read my lips, etc...), Reagan lied.

In fact, I'm having a hard time coming up with a president who has not lied to the American people. Never should be excused or condoned imho. But I've never seen one impeached for lying to the American people.

You won't have to. According to the information going out from Impeach Obama Campaign ? To Save America there are 12 ways to impeach him right now. That's right. He should have been impeached already. Better late than never.

If the list you posted above are their grounds for impeachment, then I believe they are legally in error. As I posted above, POTUS - legally - has broad discretion in exercising his duties as chief law enforcement officer, commander in chief, etc ...

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Jeremiah - unfortunately many of those issues can be answered in the affirmative without any law being broken. POTUS is legally empowered to make many decision as chief law enforcement, commander in chief, etc...

Not according to the United States Constitution. The charge is treason.

 

[PratchettFan]

Both Barry and Hillary and some of their assorted butt lickers outright lied their asses off to the American people. Repeatedly in some cases.

Unfortunately, even if true that doesn't appear to be a crime. And it is all to common. Bush lied about Pat Tilman and Jessica Lynch. Clinton lied about Monica (under oath too - a more serious legal matter). Bush senior (read my lips, etc...), Reagan lied.

In fact, I'm having a hard time coming up with a president who has not lied to the American people. Never should be excused or condoned imho. But I've never seen one impeached for lying to the American people.

You won't have to. According to the information going out from Impeach Obama Campaign ? To Save America there are 12 ways to impeach him right now. That's right. He should have been impeached already. Better late than never.

Once again, read the Constitution. I thnk you will find that it doesn't make a bit of difference what some little group with a web site puts out. Only the House of Representatives can impeach. At this point, they haven't even started the process let alone done it. So far, I haven't seen a single thing which leads me to believe impeachment is in the future - but it is always possible.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The three Articles of Impeachment in the Nixon case was obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of congress.

The same charges present here.

If you read the Nixon Articles of Impeachment, they could be word for word the same ones applicable to obama.

Or George Bush or Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan and a whole host of other Presidents.

yes, we know you hate bush, cheney, and reagan. but an ex president or a dead president cannot be impeached.

how about if we deal with the guy that is screwing up our country right now?

We know you hate Obama. No problem. But you are not arguing that being hated by you is a crime are you?

 

[Cuyo]

The same way there was a 'Serious discussion' about the President's religion and citizenship status.





IOW, no.

 

[Liberaservative]

On what charge?
Are you asking for a conviction without a criminal charge?
If so, I would hope NO ONE would vote to convict.

The same charge that was against Richard Nixon. Abuse of Power.

Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice for failing to turn over White House tape recordings that were subpoenaed

As with the monumental misrepresentation of why President Clinton was impeached (hint: it wasn't just because he cheated on Hillary with an intern and lied about it), the Left likes to overgeneralize that Nixon was impeached (or was headed for impeachment) just over his cover up of a third rate burglary.

There was an Article 2 and Article 3 contained in the Articles of Impeachment drawn up against Nixon. Two dealt with his use of the IRS to attack his political opponents and three dealt with his obstruction of justice -- specifically by failing to produce requested documents.

Well, if the IRS scandal is ever tied back to the White House, I think it just might be an identical "high crime or misdemeanor" for which Nixon faced impeachment. And, considering the foot-dragging in which this administration has engaged on just about every controversy emerging since he took office, he may be competing with Nixon over a similar Article 3.

Nixon Articles of Impeachment

 

[TemplarKormac]

Article II Section IV.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

List of impeachable Violations:


FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet

PPACA: Individual Mandate; heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March 2012, ruled as a tax by the Supreme Court in June of 2012.

EPA 1: GHG lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February 2012

OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years

NLRB: Boeing; Engaged in unprecedented behavior as described by former Chairmen under both Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton; behavior is best exemplified in South Carolina where the Board tried to muzzle over 80 percent of state voters who supported a secret ballot amendment to the South Carolina Constitution and attempted unsuccessfully to tell an employer in the state where they can and cannot base manufacturing facilities

EPA: Florida Water; EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria pre-empted Florida standards; U.S. District Judge upheld the state’s site-specific alternative criteria for streams and rivers

EPA: Texas Air; TX filed lawsuit challenging Cross-State Air Pollution Rules; application rule to TX was particularly dubious because state was included in the regulation at the last minute and without an opportunity to respond to the proposed regulation; regulation was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from TX affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas

EPA: Oklahoma Air; EPA illegally usurped Oklahoma’s authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for addressing sources of emissions that affect visibility, by imposing a federal implementation plan; Federal plan goes beyond the authority granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act and will result in $2 billion in cost to install technology needed to complete the EPA plan, and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in the cost of electricity; Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

HHS: Religious Liberty; HHS mandated religious entities such as Catholic, Baptist and Jewish schools and churches be required to provided medical services they find unconscionable to their employees; President attempted to compromise with an “accommodation” in name only that required insurance companies to provide the services for free to the religious organization employees; Accommodation made matters worse as many religious-base hospitals and schools are self-insurers; Seven Attorneys General filed suit to protect religious liberty and oppose the HHS mandate

DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID

DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States

DOJ: Arizona Immigration; In violation of 10th Amendment, federal government to sue to prevent AZ from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within Arizona’s borders; Affects Arizona because state has a large percentage, compared to other states, of illegal immigrants and need to be able to act to reduce the number

DOJ: Alabama Immigration; The DOJ challenged Alabama’s immigration reform laws after parts were “green lighted” by a federal judge; DOJ appealed the ruling; parts of the AL case have been struck down in various federal courts; specific provisions of the law include collection of the immigration status of public school students, businesses must use E-Verify, prohibition of illegal immigrants receiving public benefits; the provision requiring immigrants to always carry alien registration cards; allowance of lawsuits by state citizens who do not believe public officials are enforcing the law

DOJ: South Carolina Immigration; DOJ challenged South Carolina’s immigration reform laws that are very similar to the AZ which is scheduled to appear before the United States Supreme Court; SC case will be heard by the 4th Circuit soon there after as the 4th Circuit granted SC motion to extend the filing time until after the US Supreme Court issues an Opinion in AZ

Congressional: “Recess” appointments to NLRB (three) and CFPB (one)

EEOC: Hosanna Tabor (MI); Sought to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church

DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice; SC and Washington State filed suit, as a result, contesting the unconstitutional action; American people have paid more than $31 billion (including interest) through percentages of electric rate fees towards the project and taxpayers have footed an addition $200 million in legal feeds and over $2 billion in judgments against the DOE for breaking contracts associated with Yucca Mountain

DOI: Glendale Casino (AZ); Glendale is a violation because the Federal Government is forcing a family-oriented town, Glendale, to become another Las Vegas against its will. Essentially, the Federal Government has granted ‘reservation status’ to a 54-acre plot in the same town, where the Tohono O’odham Nation plans to build a resort and casino.

Not a single impeachable charge in the lot.

Oh, did you read it? Or are you going to sit there and tell me what isn't impeachable under the law?

Who does the Federal Government report to? Yes, the President. Violating the Constitution is an impeachable offense in and of itself! Arbitrarily breaking Federal Law is a cause for Impeachment. Going to war without prior approval from Congress is impeachable. Lying to Congress is actually covered under Federal Law, and is an impeachable offense. Performing the regulatory actions of Congress on commerce is also an impeachable offense.

You can't deny it. It's all there.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If he knew what was happening? What would he have to know about in order for it to be a criminal offense?

Thought I was responding to something about the IRS deal, obviously I misread something lol

LOL - no sweat. But if you believe Obama commited illegal acts in relation to the IRS deal - then I believe that is fair game under the "impeachment" heading.

Obama ordered the IRS to do these illegal acts. It was from orders by the White House. They are connecting those dots right now. Resolution 36 is not going to be the answer because the conservative members of GOP do not trust Issa. They have decided to go with something totally different. That story should be coming out shortly I expect. Ga. Congressman Westmoreland was sharp to refuse signing it. He saw what they were up to. Bachmann didn't see it at first and did sign it.

You'll notice the Dems are doing their best to present a faux conflict with Issa - they did the same thing with Boehner and Obama before and McCain and Obama ( so they could get McCain in charge of Benghazi investigation and give Obama a man he could rely on ) McCain is a quisling. So is Issa. That is how they do it: Put as much distance between the two - make it look like they hate each other - so US citizens don't pick up on the back room deal going on. Issa can't be trusted.

- J.

 

[Oldguy]

Source: ImpeachObamaCampaign.com & World Net Daily News

Has Obama committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” that warrant impeachment and removal? There is much evidence that says, yes, he has.

Impeachment of the president is justified on constitutional grounds if any of the following 12 questions is answered in the affirmative:

■Did President Obama have personal knowledge of the illegal “Fast and Furious” project run by ATF and approved by top officials in the Department of Justice, a plan to sell over 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels, weapons now linked to numerous crimes on both sides of the border including the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?


■Did the president have knowledge of the ongoing effort by Attorney General Eric Holder and other Justice Department officials to cover up the true purpose and scope of that ill-conceived, illegal project?


■Did the president direct his appointees on the National Labor Relations Board to bring a lawsuit against Boeing as a political payoff to organized labor?


■Did the president act contrary to the advice and pleas of his own CIA director, four previous intelligence agency heads of both parties and numerous experts on covert operations when, on April 16, 2009, he made public four internal Justice Department memos on terrorist interrogation techniques, thereby deliberately emasculating our anti-terrorist intelligence operations and endangering the lives of many intelligence agents?


■Did the president have knowledge of a plan by the Department of Homeland Security, ordered by Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano and the deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, David Aguilar, to distort and falsify the Border Patrol’s southwest border illegal-alien apprehension numbers by means of a deliberate, planned undercount – for the purpose of misleading the public and Congress about the true (abysmal) state of border security?


■By choosing not to secure the border against unlawful entry, has the president willfully disregarded his clear duty under Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution to protect the states from foreign invasion? Did the president admit this in a candid exchange with Sen. Jon Kyl, telling him the reason he was not stopping the cross-border human trafficking was to force Republicans in Congress to strike a deal for amnesty legislation?


■Is the president showing contempt for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law by ordering an “administrative amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens through the implementation of the John Morton memo of June 2011?


■Has the president demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and violated the separation of powers by issuing numerous executive orders and agency rules that have no basis in statute and often contradict congressional votes against such actions?


■Did the president authorize Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to violate current federal laws against aiding and abetting illegal aliens by signing agreements with foreign countries and pledging to protect and fund educational efforts to inform illegal aliens of their workplace “rights”? Also did these “agreements” she signed with foreign countries violate Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution which clearly establishes the manner in which treaties are to be undertaken and ratified?


■Did the president violate his oath of office when he instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts? Does the Constitution permit the person designated by Article II, Section 1, as holding the “executive power” of government to decide unilaterally to not enforce a law he disagrees with?


■Did the president authorize or approve the offer of a federal job to Rep. Joe Sestek if he would withdraw from the 2010 Democratic primary race for U.S. senator in Pennsylvania?


■Did the president violate the War Powers Act by conducting military operations in Libya beyond the 60-day limitation?

Impeach Obama Campaign ? To Save America

"Did the President" is a question, not a charge.

Once you can prove the President "DID" do those things, get back to us.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And as if I didn't need to repeat myself again, here is a list of actual Constitutional violations committed by Obama himself:

1. Invaded Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Uganda and Pakistan without prior Congressional approval. (Article 1, Section 8)

2. Killed Americans without Due Process rights. (14th Amendment, Section 1)

3. Issued Soviet-style order to Catholic and other faith-based institutions to violate their beliefs and provide insurance covering abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations. (1st Amendment)

4. Appointed agency "czars" without approval from the Senate. (Article 2, Section 2)

5. Made illegal recess appointments. (Article 2, Section 2)

6. Forced Americans into a colossal monstrosity known as Obamacare, insisting it was a tax, and ruled a tax by the Supreme Court. (Article 1, Section 8)

7. Refuses to enforce laws faithfully, for lack of will or preference. (Article II, Section 3)

8. Stonewalled Fast and Furious investigation. (Contempt of Congress)

9. Did not prosecute two New Black Panther members for intimidating voters at a Pennsylvania polling place. (14th and 15th Amendments)

10. Allowed for the Department of Justice to justify use of drone strikes against American citizens on American soil; without first giving them their due process rights. (14th Amendment)

11. Allowed the FCC to enact "net neutrality" protocols, later stuck down by lower court. (1st Amendment)

12. Sued Arizona in 2010 for upholding Federal law. (10th Amendment)

13. Upon swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" he gives a foreign (Felipe Calderon) leader a platform to denounce an American state. Upon swearing that oath, he affirms the the States are part of the United States and no other foreign state by default.

14. Allowed the NLRB to sue Boeing for not setting up it's plant in a Right-to-work state, upon Union objections. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government call tell businesses where to operate.

15. Signed Dodd-Frank into law. (5th and 14th Amendment; Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2)

16. 9/11 Responders Relief Fund (Article 1, Section 8)

17. Accepted Chairmanship of the UN Security Council. (Article 1, Section 9)

18. Instituted Cap and Trade (Article 1, Section 8)

19. Cash for Clunkers (Article 1, Sections 2 and 8)

20. TARP funding (Article 1, Section 8)

21. Failed to protect the border. (Article 4, Section 4)

22. Granted Amnesty to 11 million Illegal Immigrants. (Article 4, Section 4)

 

[PratchettFan]

Article II Section IV.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

List of impeachable Violations:


FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet

PPACA: Individual Mandate; heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March 2012, ruled as a tax by the Supreme Court in June of 2012.

EPA 1: GHG lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February 2012

OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years

NLRB: Boeing; Engaged in unprecedented behavior as described by former Chairmen under both Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton; behavior is best exemplified in South Carolina where the Board tried to muzzle over 80 percent of state voters who supported a secret ballot amendment to the South Carolina Constitution and attempted unsuccessfully to tell an employer in the state where they can and cannot base manufacturing facilities

EPA: Florida Water; EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria pre-empted Florida standards; U.S. District Judge upheld the state’s site-specific alternative criteria for streams and rivers

EPA: Texas Air; TX filed lawsuit challenging Cross-State Air Pollution Rules; application rule to TX was particularly dubious because state was included in the regulation at the last minute and without an opportunity to respond to the proposed regulation; regulation was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from TX affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas

EPA: Oklahoma Air; EPA illegally usurped Oklahoma’s authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for addressing sources of emissions that affect visibility, by imposing a federal implementation plan; Federal plan goes beyond the authority granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act and will result in $2 billion in cost to install technology needed to complete the EPA plan, and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in the cost of electricity; Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

HHS: Religious Liberty; HHS mandated religious entities such as Catholic, Baptist and Jewish schools and churches be required to provided medical services they find unconscionable to their employees; President attempted to compromise with an “accommodation” in name only that required insurance companies to provide the services for free to the religious organization employees; Accommodation made matters worse as many religious-base hospitals and schools are self-insurers; Seven Attorneys General filed suit to protect religious liberty and oppose the HHS mandate

DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID

DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States

DOJ: Arizona Immigration; In violation of 10th Amendment, federal government to sue to prevent AZ from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within Arizona’s borders; Affects Arizona because state has a large percentage, compared to other states, of illegal immigrants and need to be able to act to reduce the number

DOJ: Alabama Immigration; The DOJ challenged Alabama’s immigration reform laws after parts were “green lighted” by a federal judge; DOJ appealed the ruling; parts of the AL case have been struck down in various federal courts; specific provisions of the law include collection of the immigration status of public school students, businesses must use E-Verify, prohibition of illegal immigrants receiving public benefits; the provision requiring immigrants to always carry alien registration cards; allowance of lawsuits by state citizens who do not believe public officials are enforcing the law

DOJ: South Carolina Immigration; DOJ challenged South Carolina’s immigration reform laws that are very similar to the AZ which is scheduled to appear before the United States Supreme Court; SC case will be heard by the 4th Circuit soon there after as the 4th Circuit granted SC motion to extend the filing time until after the US Supreme Court issues an Opinion in AZ

Congressional: “Recess” appointments to NLRB (three) and CFPB (one)

EEOC: Hosanna Tabor (MI); Sought to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church

DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice; SC and Washington State filed suit, as a result, contesting the unconstitutional action; American people have paid more than $31 billion (including interest) through percentages of electric rate fees towards the project and taxpayers have footed an addition $200 million in legal feeds and over $2 billion in judgments against the DOE for breaking contracts associated with Yucca Mountain

DOI: Glendale Casino (AZ); Glendale is a violation because the Federal Government is forcing a family-oriented town, Glendale, to become another Las Vegas against its will. Essentially, the Federal Government has granted ‘reservation status’ to a 54-acre plot in the same town, where the Tohono O’odham Nation plans to build a resort and casino.

Not a single impeachable charge in the lot.

Oh, did you read it? Or are you going to sit there and tell me what isn't impeachable under the law?

Who does the Federal Government report to? Yes, the President. Violating the Constitution is an impeachable offense in and of itself! Arbitrarily breaking Federal Law is a cause for Impeachment. Going to war without prior approval from Congress is impeachable. Lying to Congress is actually covered under Federal Law, and is an impeachable offense. Performing the regulatory actions of Congress on commerce is also an impeachable offense.

You can't deny it. It's all there.

Of ccourse I can deny it. It's rubbish. I read everything you listed and not a single one of them is an impeachable act. Your argument is silly. Basically, you are saying that if you don't agree with a policy or you think something is against the law, then we should remove the President of the United States. Beyond silly.

This is why the Constitution places it in the hands of the Congress. It is hoped that they will place the good of the country over petty differences.

 

[Oldguy]

Unfortunately for the right, we are a nation of laws and OMG! OBAMA isn't an impeachable offense.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Templar - Your list is simply a list of decisions that you disagree with. Disagreeing with you is not a crime (or I'd be on death row). POTUS is legally empowered to make those calls. 2 & 10 - might have some legs, IF you can nail it all down with evidence and actual violations.

IMHO

 

[Liberaservative]

"Did the President" is a question, not a charge.

Once you can prove the President "DID" do those things, get back to us.

How do you expect the question, "Did the President..." to get answered if those with the authority to ask are prevented from doing so?

 

[Katzndogz]

The difference between Nixon and obama is that Nixon had Henry Kissinger and obama is black.

Nixon resigned because Kissinger told him that an impeachment would tear the nation apart and Nixon didn't want that then, any more than he wanted it when Kennedy was elected and Nixon knew that the election was the result of voter fraud. Nixon conceded because he didn't want the nation torn apart. Now he was asked for the same kind of sacrifice.

obama believes that being black will offer cover for any sin, crime or wrongdoing. No matter what he does, he can always claim racism and make everything go away. If he still has any clout whatsoever some of the press will help him.

Whether or not there is an impeachment, this regime is over. obama was never much of a leader, now he is none.

 

[Redfish]

Or George Bush or Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan and a whole host of other Presidents.

yes, we know you hate bush, cheney, and reagan. but an ex president or a dead president cannot be impeached.

how about if we deal with the guy that is screwing up our country right now?

We know you hate Obama. No problem. But you are not arguing that being hated by you is a crime are you?

of course not, I said earlier that I did not think there would be an impeachment.

obama is a terrible president but I think we are stuck with him until 2016

 

[TemplarKormac]

Source: ImpeachObamaCampaign.com & World Net Daily News

Has Obama committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” that warrant impeachment and removal? There is much evidence that says, yes, he has.

Impeachment of the president is justified on constitutional grounds if any of the following 12 questions is answered in the affirmative:

■Did President Obama have personal knowledge of the illegal “Fast and Furious” project run by ATF and approved by top officials in the Department of Justice, a plan to sell over 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels, weapons now linked to numerous crimes on both sides of the border including the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?


■Did the president have knowledge of the ongoing effort by Attorney General Eric Holder and other Justice Department officials to cover up the true purpose and scope of that ill-conceived, illegal project?


■Did the president direct his appointees on the National Labor Relations Board to bring a lawsuit against Boeing as a political payoff to organized labor?


■Did the president act contrary to the advice and pleas of his own CIA director, four previous intelligence agency heads of both parties and numerous experts on covert operations when, on April 16, 2009, he made public four internal Justice Department memos on terrorist interrogation techniques, thereby deliberately emasculating our anti-terrorist intelligence operations and endangering the lives of many intelligence agents?


■Did the president have knowledge of a plan by the Department of Homeland Security, ordered by Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano and the deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, David Aguilar, to distort and falsify the Border Patrol’s southwest border illegal-alien apprehension numbers by means of a deliberate, planned undercount – for the purpose of misleading the public and Congress about the true (abysmal) state of border security?


■By choosing not to secure the border against unlawful entry, has the president willfully disregarded his clear duty under Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution to protect the states from foreign invasion? Did the president admit this in a candid exchange with Sen. Jon Kyl, telling him the reason he was not stopping the cross-border human trafficking was to force Republicans in Congress to strike a deal for amnesty legislation?


■Is the president showing contempt for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law by ordering an “administrative amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens through the implementation of the John Morton memo of June 2011?


■Has the president demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and violated the separation of powers by issuing numerous executive orders and agency rules that have no basis in statute and often contradict congressional votes against such actions?


■Did the president authorize Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to violate current federal laws against aiding and abetting illegal aliens by signing agreements with foreign countries and pledging to protect and fund educational efforts to inform illegal aliens of their workplace “rights”? Also did these “agreements” she signed with foreign countries violate Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution which clearly establishes the manner in which treaties are to be undertaken and ratified?


■Did the president violate his oath of office when he instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts? Does the Constitution permit the person designated by Article II, Section 1, as holding the “executive power” of government to decide unilaterally to not enforce a law he disagrees with?


■Did the president authorize or approve the offer of a federal job to Rep. Joe Sestek if he would withdraw from the 2010 Democratic primary race for U.S. senator in Pennsylvania?


■Did the president violate the War Powers Act by conducting military operations in Libya beyond the 60-day limitation?

Impeach Obama Campaign ? To Save America

"Did the President" is a question, not a charge.

Once you can prove the President "DID" do those things, get back to us.

When you can answer those questions, when you can prove that he "DIDN'T" do those things, get back to us.