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.
To HUGGY: You are justifying the deaths of over 80 people because ATF could not serve a warrant on one man. Keep that in mind the next time a cop kills someone in self-defense or by accident.
I am not "justifying" anything. I wasn't there. I don't really like police abuse in any form. They are there to "serve and protect". If the four ATF agents hadn't been killed it could have been a wait it out stand off.
To HUGGY: You are justifying the deaths of over 80 people because ATF could not serve a warrant on one man. Keep that in mind the next time a cop kills someone in self-defense or by accident.
I am not "justifying" anything. I wasn't there. I don't really like police abuse in any form. They are there to "serve and protect". If the four ATF agents hadn't been killed it could have been a wait it out stand off.
To HUGGY: There was no way in hell Clinton was going to let that siege continue.
And there are serious doubts about who actually killed those ATF agents. Some say they were killed by friendly fire. The stuff at this link is a bit too religious for my tastes, but the author does make some interesting points.
NAFTA was actually Bush I's baby.
NAFTA was actually Bush I's baby.
"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact."
NAFTA signed into law — History.com This Day in History — 12/8/1993
HUGGY;6273667
I do not know what was in Clinton's mind.
HUGGY;6273667
The official report does not equivicate on who killed the ATF agents.
It all boils down to the media. LBJ bugged Barry Goldwater's plane and dirty political tricks were commonplace. LBJ could have sluffed off a minor inconvenience like Watergate in a heartbeat but a republican was in the white house after LBJ tearfully quit the VietNam war on TV and the Washington Post had an agenda. Who would have trusted editorials disguised as news from a reporter who was raised by card carrying communists and was most likely infused with an abiding hatred for a president who once was a federal prosecutor and went after communists? Who in the world today would tolerate "information" from an undisclosed source in the white house without trying to verify the information? The fix was in and the media destroyed Nixon.
Tim McVeigh is all yours guys.
When you lose this election one of your nutters will hurt others or at least try to.
I hope we catch them before they hurt people like McVeigh did and I wish we would let them speak their minds to the American people.
Once that happened the current republican party we have would die the death it needs to die.
Then maybe the republican party could once again become an honorable party.
Matters not, all that matters is who signed it and enacted it... Clinton would do anything, and that was proven by his wanting to be so popular at the time, and now we are all paying dearly for it.NAFTA was actually Bush I's baby.
NAFTA was actually Bush I's baby.
Congress will never impeach a Democrat traitor. They were ready to impeach Richard Nixon for getting caught engaging in dirty tricks, but no Congress will ever impeach a president for treason never not in a million years.
Nixons Articles of Impeachment were predicated on actual evidence of criminal activity on the part of the president, not merely dirty tricks:
Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:
Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
He misued the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
Nixon Articles of Impeachment
Nixon obstructed justice, made false statements, and violated the Constitutional rights of American citizens the evidence was so overwhelming that Nixon resigned in disgrace, rather than having the courage to stand trial in the Senate.
Tancredo is a bitter partisan hack, just like the OP; desperate and angry that a democratic president is about to be re-elected.
The constitution and the courts have already defined treaon. To impeach a president, however, the House does not need treason as a charge. To impeach, the House only needs to create a charge, and the charge can be almost anything, perhaps contempt for Congress, and then a vote of impeachment.
The constitution and the courts have already defined treaon. To impeach a president, however, the House does not need treason as a charge. To impeach, the House only needs to create a charge, and the charge can be almost anything, perhaps contempt for Congress, and then a vote of impeachment.
In order for the House to form a committee to draft articles of impeachment, there must be objective, documented evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the CE, not subjective partisan contrivances and lies, as is currently the case.
2 Democratic Presidents have been in impeached in the United States..no Republicans have.
The constitution is pretty explicit about Treason.
And this man committed it.
President Ronald Reagan - Address on Iran-Contra - YouTube
If you want to go past the bullshit, at 2:52 he admits to treason.
Question: How is Benghazi different from Watergate and Iran-Contra? The obvious answer: the media. Liberal journalists turned Watergate and Iran-Contra into gigantic national scandals by their consistent, relentless pursuit of both stories; to the contrary, they are consistently, relentlessly ignoring Benghazi.
XXXXX
. . . if you want to understand Watergate, you need to understand the hatred of Nixon by the liberal media.
The media's feelings about Ronald Reagan were not quite the same, but nasty nonetheless. Liberal journalists demonized Reagan, calling him everything from an idiot to a nuclear warmonger. They caricatured Reagan as a dawdling old fool who wanted to blow up the world and who disliked the homeless, the poor, minorities, and on and on. They blamed Ragan for everything from greed to AIDS. And they searched diligently for a Watergate-like scandal to run Reagan out of the White House, as they had Nixon.
The operative words are "searched diligently." CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, and the usual suspects looked everywhere for something -- gee, anything -- to hurt Reagan. Being political partisans first and journalists second, they dug furiously for their Watergate. And they thought they had it in Iran-Contra.
XXXXX
Wherever the president and his men went, they were tailed and peppered by aggressive reporters who ensured a constant stream of questions about Iran-Contra. It was unceasing -- the complete opposite of what we're seeing now with Obama and crew over Benghazi.
XXXXX
The way the Reagan team reacted to initial reports on Iran-Contra is precisely the opposite of how the Obama team has responded. But even more telling are the opposite media reactions. For Iran-Contra, the media refused to be satisfied with the initial response of Meese and Reagan. Liberal reporters went absolutely bonkers, all hands on deck, a full-court press to find incriminating information. Today, under Obama, it's the exact opposite.
XXXXX
For liberals in the media, however, corpses in Libya get in the way of their primary duty: getting Barack Obama reelected.
The House has a Republican majority and could vote to impeach Obama as soon as they drew up some charges of high crimes.
That's smarm, dear:NAFTA was actually Bush I's baby.
