Obama's 13 impeachable offenses

[Freewill]

If the President has committed impeachable offenses, then the House of Representatives, i.e., the REPUBLICAN House, is negligent in it duties for not having drawn up and passed articles of impeachment.

Just one more example of Republican incompetence, apathy, and a total disregard for the good of our Nation.

No wonder we hate you people.

lolol

Wouldn't do any good, there isn't a 2/3s majority so why waste the time. It isn't like the administration kill a 16 year old or anything important.

How many 16 year olds did Bush kill invading Iraq?

None

How many did Clinton kill with 72 days of terror bombing of Serbia? I mean in addition to the Chinese nationals he killed?

How many did Obama kill in Libya and Syria?

 

[reconmark]

If the President has committed impeachable offenses, then the House of Representatives, i.e., the REPUBLICAN House, is negligent in it duties for not having drawn up and passed articles of impeachment.

Just one more example of Republican incompetence, apathy, and a total disregard for the good of our Nation.

No wonder we hate you people.

lolol

Wouldn't do any good, there isn't a 2/3s majority so why waste the time. It isn't like the administration kill a 16 year old or anything important.

How many 16 year olds did Bush kill invading Iraq?

Shut Up!!!!!....those kids over there don't matter.
They aren't White!!!!!!

 

[BlindBoo]

Not one mention of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Americans are ******* retarded.

Yeah if your putting together a phony list of impeachable offenses, that one should def. be on the list.

A phony list? Of phony offenses? Since when is executing a teenager without warrant, charges or trial a small offense? That was a planned assassination of an American citizen by the US Federal government for unspecified potential FUTURE crimes.

**** impeachment. Obama should die in a prison cell next to Bush.

Since it didn't happen, I say "Phony".

See how that works?

 

[BlindBoo]

Not one mention of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Americans are ******* retarded.

Yeah if your putting together a phony list of impeachable offenses, that one should def. be on the list.

In reality, it is probably the only one that has provability and has real merit, even the ACLU believes so. If you want to write off the father as an immediate threat to the US and was in effect on a battlefield then so be it, but the son? And no I don't believe them when they say he wasn't the target. He may not have been their intended target but the drone doesn't know the difference. Manslaughter at best.

But you know I don't think we should push this issue. Because the administration has already said that it has the authority to target whomever they feel is a threat to the state. If we push this then the courts may, as they have shown they do, side with the administration and it will be come law of the land that the president can indeed pick and choose who get life and who gets death. Which is happening NOW. So unless we are willing to take this to its conclusion then let it be. Sad state of affairs. But the 16 year old did have a funny name and didn't look like us so apparently the left wing doesn't care. Except surprisingly the ACLU.

The Drone That Killed My Grandson

Wouldn't that be true of every president who killed civilians and called it collateral damage?

That also is not exactly what they've said about the criteria for targeting our enemies is it?

His age, name and looks have nothing to do with it. More like his proximity at the time of the explosion made all the difference.

The ACLU also teamed up with the the GOP to fight against the stringent anti-terrorist measures the Clinton Administration originally proposed. That turned out to be a real good deal for the people in the WTC on 9-11 didn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wouldn't do any good, there isn't a 2/3s majority so why waste the time. It isn't like the administration kill a 16 year old or anything important.

How many 16 year olds did Bush kill invading Iraq?

None

How many did Clinton kill with 72 days of terror bombing of Serbia? I mean in addition to the Chinese nationals he killed?

How many did Obama kill in Libya and Syria?

lol, this poster has just declared that no one 16 years of age was killed in the Iraq War.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the President has committed impeachable offenses, then the House of Representatives, i.e., the REPUBLICAN House, is negligent in it duties for not having drawn up and passed articles of impeachment.

Just one more example of Republican incompetence, apathy, and a total disregard for the good of our Nation.

No wonder we hate you people.

lolol

You mean like the democrats didn't prosecute Bush for his numerous, according to them, war crimes?

Oh, I see, you concede that the idea of impeaching Obama is just as ridiculous as the idea of impeaching Bush.

So why are jabbering about it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the President has committed impeachable offenses, then the House of Representatives, i.e., the REPUBLICAN House, is negligent in it duties for not having drawn up and passed articles of impeachment.

Just one more example of Republican incompetence, apathy, and a total disregard for the good of our Nation.

No wonder we hate you people.

lolol

You mean like the democrats didn't prosecute Bush for his numerous, according to them, war crimes?

You want to impeach Obama for what? Killing an American citizen in a drone attack?

Why only Obama? Why not Bush?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Aug. 14 2013: Delayed provision in Obamacare to cap out-of-pocket costs, picking and choosing which laws to enforce, which is to exceed authority (per Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution).

June 17 2013: Obama's National Labor Board recess appointment deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Thus far, Obama has ignored this ruling. .

And there are many more.

'Article 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution charges the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It doesn’t say that he “should” execute the laws of the United States; it uses the imperative “shall.”
Nor does the Constitution say that the President can pick and choose to enforce some of the laws, or just the ones he likes.
Nor does the Constitution give the President the authority to create new laws. Article 1, Sec. 1 is clear on that point; “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Obama's 13 Impeachable Offenses​

​

NOTE TO RIGHTWINGERS: A blog (such as the reference above) is not a news agency. They do not have to uphold any journalistic standards such as Reuters, AP, and major newspapers.

So PLEASE stop using them as corroborative evidence to bolster your semi-illiterate and uninformed opinions.

All you need to do is subscribe to WSJ and you'll get plenty of red meat and much more cred for your incipient battle against Obama.

 

[Freewill]

Yeah if your putting together a phony list of impeachable offenses, that one should def. be on the list.

In reality, it is probably the only one that has provability and has real merit, even the ACLU believes so. If you want to write off the father as an immediate threat to the US and was in effect on a battlefield then so be it, but the son? And no I don't believe them when they say he wasn't the target. He may not have been their intended target but the drone doesn't know the difference. Manslaughter at best.

But you know I don't think we should push this issue. Because the administration has already said that it has the authority to target whomever they feel is a threat to the state. If we push this then the courts may, as they have shown they do, side with the administration and it will be come law of the land that the president can indeed pick and choose who get life and who gets death. Which is happening NOW. So unless we are willing to take this to its conclusion then let it be. Sad state of affairs. But the 16 year old did have a funny name and didn't look like us so apparently the left wing doesn't care. Except surprisingly the ACLU.

The Drone That Killed My Grandson

Wouldn't that be true of every president who killed civilians and called it collateral damage?

We are not talking about the conduct of war or even military action such as Iraq or Bosnia. We are talking the targeting of Americans in another country. There is no doubt Obama has the ability to pick the targets. Granted, we send in special ops to kill people such as OBL, if that was actually him, but in those cases usually there is positive identification or the shooter made a mistake. Under such conditions it would be hard to find fault. But in the case of our drone program it appears that the targets are selected by someone else placing a GPS device.

That also is not exactly what they've said about the criteria for targeting our enemies is it?

Not sure what criteria you are talking about. The constitution sets the standard for whom they are suppose to target and kill. An immediate threat is certainly one criteria.

Here is the criteria set by the WH at: Fact Sheet: U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities | The White House

Standards for the Use of Lethal Force
Any decision to use force abroad – even when our adversaries are terrorists dedicated to killing American citizens – is a significant one. Lethal force will not be proposed or pursued as punishment or as a substitute for prosecuting a terrorist suspect in a civilian court or a military commission. Lethal force will be used only to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively. In particular, lethal force will be used outside areas of active hostilities only when the following preconditions are met:
My words: Do you think this was followed in ANY of the killings of the Americans overseas? Be honest, you have to admit they did NOT.

First, there must be a legal basis for using lethal force, whether it is against a senior operational leader of a terrorist organization or the forces that organization is using or intends to use to conduct terrorist attacks.

How could they say they did this when there was no due process at all, even they admit as much.

Second, the United States will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the United States will not use lethal force.

Third, the following criteria must be met before lethal action may be taken:

1.Near certainty that the terrorist target is present;

Obviously not the case in the with the 16 year old boy. According to Obama's administration and we only have their word for it.

2.Near certainty that non-combatants[1] will not be injured or killed;

His cousins were blown up with him.

3.An assessment that capture is not feasible at the time of the operation;

Was an assessment done? After all the killings were done in an ally country with their permission, except for Pakistan supposedly.

4.An assessment that the relevant governmental authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not effectively address the threat to U.S. persons; and

There was no imminent threat to U.S. persons.

5.An assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.

Again, was there an assessment made?

Finally, whenever the United States uses force in foreign territories, international legal principles, including respect for sovereignty and the law of armed conflict, impose important constraints on the ability of the United States to act unilaterally – and on the way in which the United States can use force. The United States respects national sovereignty and international law.


His age, name and looks have nothing to do with it. More like his proximity at the time of the explosion made all the difference.

Thus manslaughter.

The ACLU also teamed up with the the GOP to fight against the stringent anti-terrorist measures the Clinton Administration originally proposed. That turned out to be a real good deal for the people in the WTC on 9-11 didn't it?

Again your history is incorrect the GOP did not team up with the ACLU the Clinton administration did and they put up the walls between the agencies which directly lead to 9/11.

In 1995, while America’s intelligence agencies were still investigating al Qaeda's 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, the Clinton administration strengthened FISA to a degree that was unprecedented. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased restrictions on information-sharing between intelligence (CIA) and law-enforcement (FBI) agencies. In a 1995 memo to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, titled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Gorelick wrote the following:



“We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”

The Wall of Separation between Law-Enforcement and Intelligence - Discover the Networks

 

[Freewill]

If the President has committed impeachable offenses, then the House of Representatives, i.e., the REPUBLICAN House, is negligent in it duties for not having drawn up and passed articles of impeachment.

Just one more example of Republican incompetence, apathy, and a total disregard for the good of our Nation.

No wonder we hate you people.

lolol

You mean like the democrats didn't prosecute Bush for his numerous, according to them, war crimes?

You want to impeach Obama for what? Killing an American citizen in a drone attack?

Why only Obama? Why not Bush?

What American did the Bush administration target and kill? If they did without due process, breaking even their criteria then YES both should be on trial.

 

[Freewill]

If the President has committed impeachable offenses, then the House of Representatives, i.e., the REPUBLICAN House, is negligent in it duties for not having drawn up and passed articles of impeachment.

Just one more example of Republican incompetence, apathy, and a total disregard for the good of our Nation.

No wonder we hate you people.

lolol

You mean like the democrats didn't prosecute Bush for his numerous, according to them, war crimes?

Oh, I see, you concede that the idea of impeaching Obama is just as ridiculous as the idea of impeaching Bush.

So why are jabbering about it?

Actually I was using your logic(sic) to point out if the Republicans are incompetent then the Democrats were equally incompetent. But we both know that is a BS argument so I am not sure why you are doubling down.

 

[Freewill]

How many 16 year olds did Bush kill invading Iraq?

None

How many did Clinton kill with 72 days of terror bombing of Serbia? I mean in addition to the Chinese nationals he killed?

How many did Obama kill in Libya and Syria?

lol, this poster has just declared that no one 16 years of age was killed in the Iraq War.

LOL the poster just declared no 16 year old were killed in Bosnia, Libya or Syria.

BTW we are talking about the targeting, and killing, of Americas especially a 16 year old boy.

 

[Freewill]

Hear what the Huffington post has to say: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/obama-anwar-al-awlaki-son_n_3141688.html

 

[koshergrl]

Aug. 14 2013: Delayed provision in Obamacare to cap out-of-pocket costs, picking and choosing which laws to enforce, which is to exceed authority (per Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution).

June 17 2013: Obama's National Labor Board recess appointment deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Thus far, Obama has ignored this ruling. .

And there are many more.

'Article 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution charges the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It doesn’t say that he “should” execute the laws of the United States; it uses the imperative “shall.”
Nor does the Constitution say that the President can pick and choose to enforce some of the laws, or just the ones he likes.
Nor does the Constitution give the President the authority to create new laws. Article 1, Sec. 1 is clear on that point; “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Obama's 13 Impeachable Offenses​

​

NOTE TO RIGHTWINGERS: A blog (such as the reference above) is not a news agency. They do not have to uphold any journalistic standards such as Reuters, AP, and major newspapers.

So PLEASE stop using them as corroborative evidence to bolster your semi-illiterate and uninformed opinions.

All you need to do is subscribe to WSJ and you'll get plenty of red meat and much more cred for your incipient battle against Obama.

Who determined that information only counts as *evidence* if it's provided by a left-sanctioned propaganda source? As a journalist, I understand, as does anybody with a shred of education or intelligence, that ANY source is potential gold.

So thanks, I'll continue to present information from the sources I approve, as I see fit. Statist morons will complain because they don't like anything unless it comes directly from approved leftist sources. Too bad.

It's typical of yahoos who don't have the capacity to argue points to just say "the source is unacceptable" and to think that qualifies as some sort of argument. It doesn't, unless you believe the source is LYING. In this case, it's a statement about the impeachable offenses that Obama has committed, which addresses exactly how they are impeachable offenses via reference of the Constitution. If you think the Constitution is not acceptable to use when determining if a president has committed impeachable offenses, then just say so. It's not like your rejection of the Constitution is going to surprise anybody.

 

[NYcarbineer]

None

How many did Clinton kill with 72 days of terror bombing of Serbia? I mean in addition to the Chinese nationals he killed?

How many did Obama kill in Libya and Syria?

lol, this poster has just declared that no one 16 years of age was killed in the Iraq War.

LOL the poster just declared no 16 year old were killed in Bosnia, Libya or Syria.

BTW we are talking about the targeting, and killing, of Americas especially a 16 year old boy.

Obama did not target that 16 year old American. That is your fantasy that you're obsessed with.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean like the democrats didn't prosecute Bush for his numerous, according to them, war crimes?

You want to impeach Obama for what? Killing an American citizen in a drone attack?

Why only Obama? Why not Bush?

What American did the Bush administration target and kill? If they did without due process, breaking even their criteria then YES both should be on trial.

Since I've told you several times before, why do you keep lying about not knowing that Bush killed an American with a drone strike in Yemen in 2002?

 

[Freewill]

lol, this poster has just declared that no one 16 years of age was killed in the Iraq War.

LOL the poster just declared no 16 year old were killed in Bosnia, Libya or Syria.

BTW we are talking about the targeting, and killing, of Americas especially a 16 year old boy.

Obama did not target that 16 year old American. That is your fantasy that you're obsessed with.

So he tries to say, that is your fantasy. What evidence do you have, nothing. What do I have? His father was also illegally killed just 2 weeks before. No other terrorist was reported killed or even in the area. And of course the corpse of the 16 year old and his cousins.

6000 and counting in the war on terrorism using drones, how many of those were actually senior Al Quada members?

 

[Freewill]

You want to impeach Obama for what? Killing an American citizen in a drone attack?

Why only Obama? Why not Bush?

What American did the Bush administration target and kill? If they did without due process, breaking even their criteria then YES both should be on trial.

Since I've told you several times before, why do you keep lying about not knowing that Bush killed an American with a drone strike in Yemen in 2002?

I don't believe you have told me once. If anyone is lying it is the left but that is their way.

 

[BlindBoo]

In reality, it is probably the only one that has provability and has real merit, even the ACLU believes so. If you want to write off the father as an immediate threat to the US and was in effect on a battlefield then so be it, but the son? And no I don't believe them when they say he wasn't the target. He may not have been their intended target but the drone doesn't know the difference. Manslaughter at best.

But you know I don't think we should push this issue. Because the administration has already said that it has the authority to target whomever they feel is a threat to the state. If we push this then the courts may, as they have shown they do, side with the administration and it will be come law of the land that the president can indeed pick and choose who get life and who gets death. Which is happening NOW. So unless we are willing to take this to its conclusion then let it be. Sad state of affairs. But the 16 year old did have a funny name and didn't look like us so apparently the left wing doesn't care. Except surprisingly the ACLU.

The Drone That Killed My Grandson

Wouldn't that be true of every president who killed civilians and called it collateral damage?

We are not talking about the conduct of war or even military action such as Iraq or Bosnia. We are talking the targeting of Americans in another country. There is no doubt Obama has the ability to pick the targets. Granted, we send in special ops to kill people such as OBL, if that was actually him, but in those cases usually there is positive identification or the shooter made a mistake. Under such conditions it would be hard to find fault. But in the case of our drone program it appears that the targets are selected by someone else placing a GPS device.

That also is not exactly what they've said about the criteria for targeting our enemies is it?

Not sure what criteria you are talking about. The constitution sets the standard for whom they are suppose to target and kill. An immediate threat is certainly one criteria.

Here is the criteria set by the WH at: Fact Sheet: U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities | The White House

Standards for the Use of Lethal Force
Any decision to use force abroad – even when our adversaries are terrorists dedicated to killing American citizens – is a significant one. Lethal force will not be proposed or pursued as punishment or as a substitute for prosecuting a terrorist suspect in a civilian court or a military commission. Lethal force will be used only to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively. In particular, lethal force will be used outside areas of active hostilities only when the following preconditions are met:
My words: Do you think this was followed in ANY of the killings of the Americans overseas? Be honest, you have to admit they did NOT.

First, there must be a legal basis for using lethal force, whether it is against a senior operational leader of a terrorist organization or the forces that organization is using or intends to use to conduct terrorist attacks.

How could they say they did this when there was no due process at all, even they admit as much.

Second, the United States will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the United States will not use lethal force.

Third, the following criteria must be met before lethal action may be taken:

1.Near certainty that the terrorist target is present;

Obviously not the case in the with the 16 year old boy. According to Obama's administration and we only have their word for it.

2.Near certainty that non-combatants[1] will not be injured or killed;

His cousins were blown up with him.

3.An assessment that capture is not feasible at the time of the operation;

Was an assessment done? After all the killings were done in an ally country with their permission, except for Pakistan supposedly.

4.An assessment that the relevant governmental authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not effectively address the threat to U.S. persons; and

There was no imminent threat to U.S. persons.

5.An assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.

Again, was there an assessment made?

Finally, whenever the United States uses force in foreign territories, international legal principles, including respect for sovereignty and the law of armed conflict, impose important constraints on the ability of the United States to act unilaterally – and on the way in which the United States can use force. The United States respects national sovereignty and international law.


His age, name and looks have nothing to do with it. More like his proximity at the time of the explosion made all the difference.

Thus manslaughter.

The ACLU also teamed up with the the GOP to fight against the stringent anti-terrorist measures the Clinton Administration originally proposed. That turned out to be a real good deal for the people in the WTC on 9-11 didn't it?

Again your history is incorrect the GOP did not team up with the ACLU the Clinton administration did and they put up the walls between the agencies which directly lead to 9/11.

In 1995, while America’s intelligence agencies were still investigating al Qaeda's 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, the Clinton administration strengthened FISA to a degree that was unprecedented. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased restrictions on information-sharing between intelligence (CIA) and law-enforcement (FBI) agencies. In a 1995 memo to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, titled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Gorelick wrote the following:



“We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”

The Wall of Separation between Law-Enforcement and Intelligence - Discover the Networks

Congress has authorized the President to conduct the war on al Qaeda where ever they are, who ever they are. Anyone, Americans included, who pledges to fight for their cause is an enemy and considering the asymmetrical type of warfare al Qaeda uses, should be considered a deadly threat, but especially American Citizens.

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/aclu_statement.txt

 

[westwall]

Aug. 14 2013: Delayed provision in Obamacare to cap out-of-pocket costs, picking and choosing which laws to enforce, which is to exceed authority (per Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution).

June 17 2013: Obama's National Labor Board recess appointment deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Thus far, Obama has ignored this ruling. .

And there are many more.

'Article 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution charges the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It doesn’t say that he “should” execute the laws of the United States; it uses the imperative “shall.”
Nor does the Constitution say that the President can pick and choose to enforce some of the laws, or just the ones he likes.
Nor does the Constitution give the President the authority to create new laws. Article 1, Sec. 1 is clear on that point; “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Obama's 13 Impeachable Offenses​

​

NOTE TO RIGHTWINGERS: A blog (such as the reference above) is not a news agency. They do not have to uphold any journalistic standards such as Reuters, AP, and major newspapers.

So PLEASE stop using them as corroborative evidence to bolster your semi-illiterate and uninformed opinions.

All you need to do is subscribe to WSJ and you'll get plenty of red meat and much more cred for your incipient battle against Obama.

Well, they have every right to use them...you guys are using lefty blogs all the time to support your inane statements. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" and all that....