Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The only impeachable offense that meets any muster is the IRS scandal...if it can be proven the White House was complicit in the scandal. Other than that...the rest of the 'offenses' are hogwash and partisanship at its best...coupled with the teaper hate of a black President.
The only impeachable offense that meets any muster is the IRS scandal...if it can be proven the White House was complicit in the scandal. Other than that...the rest of the 'offenses' are hogwash and partisanship at its best...coupled with the teaper hate of a black President.
The swap for 5 terrorists for one soldier is treasonable, materially aiding the enemy with 5 of the worst Taliban members.... But you can try and argue that.
The only impeachable offense that meets any muster is the IRS scandal...if it can be proven the White House was complicit in the scandal. Other than that...the rest of the 'offenses' are hogwash and partisanship at its best...coupled with the teaper hate of a black President.
The swap for 5 terrorists for one soldier is treasonable, materially aiding the enemy with 5 of the worst Taliban members.... But you can try and argue that.
The only impeachable offense that meets any muster is the IRS scandal...if it can be proven the White House was complicit in the scandal. Other than that...the rest of the 'offenses' are hogwash and partisanship at its best...coupled with the teaper hate of a black President.
The swap for 5 terrorists for one soldier is treasonable, materially aiding the enemy with 5 of the worst Taliban members.... But you can try and argue that.
Honestly, I am indifferent to that idea. I don't think it was a conscious effort to aid the enemy...shitty, I 100% agree. I am not a fan of Obama, but I think my opinions are unbiased. In the end, outside of the IRS scandal, the rest of the issues, IMO, are partisan and a continuation of the battle between estates that has existed since the inception of the Constitution. Every President, every Congress has fought each other in the Judicial Branch to determine the scope of power of their office. The issues with the Obama regime is no different. Teapers and the GOP should tread lightly as they may be hindering the actions of a future conservative President.
Did you agree with all of W's policies, Executive Orders and actions? Were you with the dems as they shed the same tears as you are today?
Be honest with yourself, Vigilante. Go beyond your disgust for Obama (righteous) and look at the inherent powers of the Executive Branch. What powers are you willing to abridge in the name of partisanship?
No, that's preposterous.I believe there is no excuse for the House to not move forward with the impeachment of Obama which is the constitutional solution to our present circumstances. And for the Republican controlled House to not utilize this solution, its members are enabling the ongoing destruction of our country!
But getting back to our Constitution, just what were our Founders expressed intentions regarding impeachment of a President? Let us read their intentions which were made on July 20th when framing our Constitution:
Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.
Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of impeachments. A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them. He hoped the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief magistrate could do no wrong.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him. Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS'S opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for any [FN12] time in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in forign pay, without being able to guard agst. it by displacing him.
It was moved & 2ded. to postpone the question of impeachments which was negatived. Mas. & S. Carolina only being ay. On ye. Question, Shall the Executive be removeable on impeachments &c.? Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay.
__________
Is it not a fact that our President is ignoring our immigration laws and is allowing our borders to be invaded; has engaged in bribery in the passage of Obamacare (the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the infamous $300 million "Louisiana Purchase"); has lied with impunity to the American People that under Obamacare they could keep their existing health insurance and doctors if the like them; has engaged in a money laundering operation under the guise of green energy in which he has plundered billions of dollars from our federal treasury and transferred them to his political donors (see: 80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.); and has usurped legislative power when he arbitrarily gutted the work requirement for welfare recipients passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton?
Our wise founding fathers placed the power of impeachment in the hands of the peoples representatives to be specifically used to remove the kind of president we now have. Our nation cannot survive as a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government for another two years with President Obama and his henchman Eric Holder in the drivers seat.
Why is the Republican controlled House not moving forward with impeachment and letting the chips fall where they may? Do our Representatives in the House not have a sworn duty to stop the above mentioned tyranny?
JWK
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion
I urge Republicans to initiate impeachment proceedings before the 2014 electtions
Our nation depends on it
The swap for 5 terrorists for one soldier is treasonable, materially aiding the enemy with 5 of the worst Taliban members.... But you can try and argue that.
Honestly, I am indifferent to that idea. I don't think it was a conscious effort to aid the enemy...shitty, I 100% agree. I am not a fan of Obama, but I think my opinions are unbiased. In the end, outside of the IRS scandal, the rest of the issues, IMO, are partisan and a continuation of the battle between estates that has existed since the inception of the Constitution. Every President, every Congress has fought each other in the Judicial Branch to determine the scope of power of their office. The issues with the Obama regime is no different. Teapers and the GOP should tread lightly as they may be hindering the actions of a future conservative President.
Did you agree with all of W's policies, Executive Orders and actions? Were you with the dems as they shed the same tears as you are today?
Be honest with yourself, Vigilante. Go beyond your disgust for Obama (righteous) and look at the inherent powers of the Executive Branch. What powers are you willing to abridge in the name of partisanship?
I disagreed strenuously with the Patriot Act, still do. I disagreed strenuously with TARP, especially with Bush leaving over $300 BILLION on the table for the Obomanation to use as he pleased. But such thing as ALTERING PASSED laws, such as the waivers, exemptions, and date changes don e by the President is patently Unconstitutional, Only Congress is supposed to have that type of power. I have a list of 700 examples of the Manchurian muslim lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc. matter of fact YOU and anyone else can exanine it...
Obama supporters will go hysterical over this well sourced list of 700 examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc. | Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog
Honestly, I am indifferent to that idea. I don't think it was a conscious effort to aid the enemy...shitty, I 100% agree. I am not a fan of Obama, but I think my opinions are unbiased. In the end, outside of the IRS scandal, the rest of the issues, IMO, are partisan and a continuation of the battle between estates that has existed since the inception of the Constitution. Every President, every Congress has fought each other in the Judicial Branch to determine the scope of power of their office. The issues with the Obama regime is no different. Teapers and the GOP should tread lightly as they may be hindering the actions of a future conservative President.
Did you agree with all of W's policies, Executive Orders and actions? Were you with the dems as they shed the same tears as you are today?
Be honest with yourself, Vigilante. Go beyond your disgust for Obama (righteous) and look at the inherent powers of the Executive Branch. What powers are you willing to abridge in the name of partisanship?
I disagreed strenuously with the Patriot Act, still do. I disagreed strenuously with TARP, especially with Bush leaving over $300 BILLION on the table for the Obomanation to use as he pleased. But such thing as ALTERING PASSED laws, such as the waivers, exemptions, and date changes don e by the President is patently Unconstitutional, Only Congress is supposed to have that type of power. I have a list of 700 examples of the Manchurian muslim lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc. matter of fact YOU and anyone else can exanine it...
Obama supporters will go hysterical over this well sourced list of 700 examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc. | Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog
@Vigilante I like you..I really do. You are of independent thought and you don't hold back. I humbly disagree with you when it comes to Obama. He is no different from the rest. Why the vitriol now and not 7 years ago?
I disagreed strenuously with the Patriot Act, still do. I disagreed strenuously with TARP, especially with Bush leaving over $300 BILLION on the table for the Obomanation to use as he pleased. But such thing as ALTERING PASSED laws, such as the waivers, exemptions, and date changes don e by the President is patently Unconstitutional, Only Congress is supposed to have that type of power. I have a list of 700 examples of the Manchurian muslim lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc. matter of fact YOU and anyone else can exanine it...
Obama supporters will go hysterical over this well sourced list of 700 examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc. | Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog
@Vigilante I like you..I really do. You are of independent thought and you don't hold back. I humbly disagree with you when it comes to Obama. He is no different from the rest. Why the vitriol now and not 7 years ago?
Aren't you paying attention for the last 6 years with Obuma? Bush was NOT great, but the man actually cared what happened, as a president should...all this guy wants to do is put us economically in a huge hole, appease the muslim hoards, and play golf. IMHO, of course, but more than happy to discuss any aspect of this with you.
Huh?? How many seats do you think the GOP is going to gain in the Senate? How many Democrats do you think would join that lunacy?There are not enough votes in the Senate. There will be after November when democrats lose, but not now.
@Vigilante I like you..I really do. You are of independent thought and you don't hold back. I humbly disagree with you when it comes to Obama. He is no different from the rest. Why the vitriol now and not 7 years ago?
Aren't you paying attention for the last 6 years with Obuma? Bush was NOT great, but the man actually cared what happened, as a president should...all this guy wants to do is put us economically in a huge hole, appease the muslim hoards, and play golf. IMHO, of course, but more than happy to discuss any aspect of this with you.
Outside of the IRS scandal. And assuming the ACA nonsense is a legal battle and not impeachable...
What do you have? And, despite what you think, I am no fan of Obama. But, as a rational person, I believe he gets a little extra criticism because he is black.
Would you agree that the Executive Branch is always questioned as to its powers. Every administration has had a challenge...so with that in mind, is the argument purely partisan? Is it Constitutional and devoid of politics? If it is devoid of politics, shouldn't you have been as fervent as your argument today?
I have a strict policy, I won't watch a video if someone wants to have a sincere discussion. If you have a valid and intriguing point, you can communicate it in your own words.
Sorry!
I have a strict policy, I won't watch a video if someone wants to have a sincere discussion. If you have a valid and intriguing point, you can communicate it in your own words.
Sorry!
I have a strict policy, that I look at what anyone has to offer, and will refute them with any weapon I have in my arsenal. A Youtube, like my little cartoons, speaks VOLUMNS to the subjects of the threads. If you can't be bothered looking and then discussing a short 5 minute video, I really can't be bothered using up my time on trivialities....But if you feel up to READING what was said, try this link! Up to you!
Obama's 13 Impeachable Offenses
June 25, 2013: The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Eric Holder that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and that the formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdiction to preclearance. Instead of complying with the ruling, Holder filed suit to order Texas to submit to preclearance, in defiance of Congress authority to legislate and the Supreme Courts authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law.
I have a strict policy, I won't watch a video if someone wants to have a sincere discussion. If you have a valid and intriguing point, you can communicate it in your own words.
Sorry!
I have a strict policy, that I look at what anyone has to offer, and will refute them with any weapon I have in my arsenal. A Youtube, like my little cartoons, speaks VOLUMNS to the subjects of the threads. If you can't be bothered looking and then discussing a short 5 minute video, I really can't be bothered using up my time on trivialities....But if you feel up to READING what was said, try this link! Up to you!
Obama's 13 Impeachable Offenses
Read it.
Blah, blah, blah...blah blah blah.
This deems more investigation though:
June 25, 2013: The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Eric Holder that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and that the formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdiction to preclearance. Instead of complying with the ruling, Holder filed suit to order Texas to submit to preclearance, in defiance of Congress authority to legislate and the Supreme Courts authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law.
