PDA

View Full Version : Impeach Obama??? The Times thinks we should.



pooltchr
09-02-2010, 07:41 PM
Interesting op ed from the Washington Times.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-...of-barack-obama (http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/major-newspaper-calls-for-impeachment-of-barack-obama)



The Washington Times, which has become known through the years as D.C.'s major alternative newspaper, called for the ouster of Obama in an op-ed column yesterday. The Times is delivered into the mailboxes of every Senator and Congressman in Washington.

"President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached."

Kuhner goes further to delineate the specific high crimes and misdemeanors to which he refers.

It turns out that this is not the first time that the Washington Times has hinted that it may now support Obama's impeachment. In July, former GOP Presidential candidate and Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo wrote an opinion piece for the paper which also called for Obama's impeachment.

Tancredo maintains that Obama violated his oath of office by his actions and inaction regarding federal enforcement of immigration law and his intention to punish the state of Arizona for passing a law that would enforce federal mandates.

The problem, of course, is that as long as the Democrats control Congress, such a move will never be made. In order for an ouster of a sitting President to occur, a clear supermajority must approve the measure. And, in this current highly partisan political climate, the only way that can occur is a massive Republican (conservatives, not RINOS) takeover of both the House and the Senate in November.

Problems regarding Presidential high crimes and misdemeanors go far beyond the White House, however. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Congress walks in tandem with this President's penchant for disregarding our nation's laws and its Constitution.</span>
A clear example of Congress as an accessory to the crimes is a <span style='font-size: 17pt'>little-reported covert act which made the ominous 'cap and trade' energy tax on Americans a reality without a vote. </span>
Many conservative political observers have long warned about actions such as these by Obama and Congress, but mainly with regard to the upcoming 'lame duck session' between November and January before the new Congress can be seated.

Cap and trade was one of the bills the Left promised to pass before they left office.

Now, however, it appears they have <span style='font-size: 17pt'>already done so, and that without debate or vote. </span> Although it appears that 65 BILLION dollars have already been transfered to an entity that profits from 'capping' greenhouse gases in the Northeast, citizens still have a window of opportunity to stop it from being implemented across the country--IF they bombard Congress with protests over cap and trade.

Such legislation would <span style='font-size: 17pt'>add an extra $2400 to $5000 dollars in energy costs PER YEAR PER HOUSEHOLD in America, </span>placing yet another unconscionable financial burden on families who are still suffering from the worst economic decline since the Great Depression.

The fact that <span style='font-size: 17pt'>these oppressive measures are being forced on the American public by elected co-conspirators in the economic collapse, such as Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, and many others </span>who gave their nod to the dubious government policy dating all the way back to the mid-1990s to essentially turn Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into welfare agencies, only underscores the <span style='font-size: 17pt'>corruption that is entrenched in Washington in Congress AND the White House.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Thus, not only is it clear that Obama should be impeached and removed from office, but his enablers in Congress, who have controlled the legislative branch since 2006, must be ousted in November.</span>



Steve

hondo
09-02-2010, 07:53 PM
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!
If Biden takes over it would take a lot of
heat off of the wingnut racists out there.

See if you can figure out what I mean by that, stevie,
before you run your mouth and bellow something asinine again.

We're the only 2 online, stevie. No help from your master.

LWW
09-03-2010, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u114/race_card.gif http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u114/race_card.gif </div></div>

OK ... so you have placed a pair on the table. Is that all you've got?

Sad, truly sad.

Try to stay on topic H.

LWW

LWW
09-03-2010, 02:51 AM
The lesson of Clinton is that the POTUS cannot be impeached and removed from office in modern America.

LWW

Qtec
09-03-2010, 03:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Washington Times, which has become known through the years as D.C.'s major alternative newspaper, </div></div>

LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by<u> Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon,</u> and is owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate owned by the Unification Church which also owns newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America. The Times is sometimes considered to be a socially and politically conservative alternative to the larger and more well-known Washington Post.</div></div>

IOW its not a serious media outlet.
Q.

LWW
09-03-2010, 04:11 AM
But you think Media Matter and Crooks & Liars are?

LWW

hondo
09-03-2010, 06:09 AM
'We're the only 2 online, stevie. No help from your master."

I was wrong. He ducked and you came a runnin.

Stretch
09-03-2010, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you think Media Matter and Crooks & Liars are?

LWW </div></div>

What does your other favorite news source, The National Enquirer, have to say about this. LOL St.

pooltchr
09-03-2010, 06:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'We're the only 2 online, stevie. No help from your master."

I was wrong. He ducked and you came a runnin. </div></div>

And you still won't address the issue of the corruption, constitutional law breaking, and complete disregard for the people by this administration and congress.

Keep your head in the sand, Hondo. Of course, when you do that, you should understand which part of your anatomy you are showing!

Steve

Stretch
09-03-2010, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'We're the only 2 online, stevie. No help from your master."

I was wrong. He ducked and you came a runnin. </div></div>

And you still won't address the issue of the corruption, constitutional law breaking, and complete disregard for the people by this administration and congress.

Keep your head in the sand, Hondo. Of course, when you do that, you should understand which part of your anatomy you are showing!

Steve </div></div>

I can feel the love. St.

Chopstick
09-03-2010, 08:26 AM
I have just started to think the same thing. Obama has clearly broken the law and violated the terms of his oath of office not to mention numerous incidents of maleficence. The legal justifications are there. His actions with GM alone would be enough.

LWW
09-03-2010, 01:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep your head in the sand, Hondo. Of course, when you do that, you should understand which part of your anatomy you are showing!

Steve </div></div>

In his defense they are hard to tell apart.

LWW

Sev
09-03-2010, 08:28 PM
I would prefer him to just resign.
If not well. Having him in office to bear witness to the financial collapse of the US would be worth it.

pooltchr
09-03-2010, 08:39 PM
He won't resign. He thinks he knows better than anyone what is best for the country.....either that, or he is bound and determined to bring the country down!

Steve

Qtec
09-04-2010, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have just started to think the same thing. Obama has clearly broken the law and violated the terms of his oath of office not to mention numerous incidents of maleficence. The legal justifications are there. His actions with GM alone would be enough. </div></div>

What ARE you talking about?

Q

LWW
09-04-2010, 09:14 AM
Something you wouldn't understand.

LWW

Chopstick
09-04-2010, 10:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have just started to think the same thing. Obama has clearly broken the law and violated the terms of his oath of office not to mention numerous incidents of maleficence. The legal justifications are there. His actions with GM alone would be enough. </div></div>

What ARE you talking about?

Q </div></div>

Surely you must be aware that Obama's actions regarding GM are extremely illegal under US law.

pooltchr
09-04-2010, 12:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Surely you must be aware that Obama's actions regarding GM are extremely illegal under US law. </div></div>

No...he probably isn't aware.

Steve

Qtec
09-04-2010, 02:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On wiretapping, Bush isn't listening to the Constitution

By Edward M. Kennedy | December 22, 2005

THE PRESIDENT is not above the law; he is not King George. Yet, with sorrow, we are now learning that in this great land we have an administration that has refused to follow well-crafted, longstanding procedures that require the president to get a court order before spying on people within the United States. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>With outrage, we learn that this administration believes that it does not have to follow the law of the land.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>Not just above the law, this administration seems to be saying that it IS the law. It contends that it can decide on its own what the law is, how to interpret it, and whether or not it has to follow it.</u></span> I believe that such <u>an arrogant and expansive view of executive power would have sent chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers -- as it does for every American hearing these startling revelations today</u>.

The president, the vice president, the secretary of state, and the attorney general tell us that the president can order domestic spying inside this country -- without judicial oversight -- under his power as commander in chief. Really? Where do they find that in the Constitution? Time and time again, this president has used his express, but limited, constitutional power to command the military to justify controversial activities -- after the fact.

The president is the commander in chief of the military. That doesn't give him the power to spy on civilians at home without any judicial oversight whatsoever, without ever revealing those activities to even well-established courts that review these matters in secrecy. Otherwise, every phone and computer in America should now come with a warning label: Warning: the privacy of your communications can no longer be guaranteed, by order of President Bush.

The president has the constitutional obligation to protect and defend the American people. That is obvious -- but he also took an oath of office, to ''preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With his arrogant usurpation of power and refusal to follow well-established wiretapping laws, I believe that this president is not living up to that oath. By shunning the oversight of the courts and ignoring the express language of the laws passed by Congress, this president is, in my judgment, defiantly and stubbornly ignoring the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. </div></div>

read on (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/22/on_wiretapping_bush_isnt_listening_to_the_constitu tion/)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GM posts another profit, moves toward stock sale.

DETROIT In a signal moment for the turnaround of the American auto industry, General Motors is edging toward a public stock sale, and its profits are now solid enough that the demanding CEO will step aside, saying his work is done.

GM said Thursday that it made $1.3 billion from April through June, its second straight quarter in the black and a complete reversal from last year, when it was forced into bankruptcy and the U.S. government took a majority stake.

CEO Ed Whitacre said he would leave his post Sept. 1. He said the GM board knew all along that he would do so after the company returned to health, and industry analysts said it was an important step leading up to the stock sale. </div></div> link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_earns_gm)

Who is the bad guy again?

Q

pooltchr
09-04-2010, 03:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Who is the bad guy again?

Q </div></div>

It's still Obama!

Steve

LWW
09-04-2010, 08:14 PM
If you would just take my advice and look up ... you would see all the points flying over your head.

His point was on Obama's illegal activity. Rather than comment as an intelligent person you resorted to your Obamatronic programming and responded with yet another <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span>

LWW

LAMas
09-05-2010, 12:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would prefer him to just resign.
If not well. Having him in office to bear witness to the financial collapse of the US would be worth it.

</div></div>

hondo posted that Pat Robertson has a solution.

Chopstick
09-06-2010, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GM posts another profit, moves toward stock sale.

DETROIT In a signal moment for the turnaround of the American auto industry, General Motors is edging toward a public stock sale, and its profits are now solid enough that the demanding CEO will step aside, saying his work is done.

GM said Thursday that it made $1.3 billion from April through June, its second straight quarter in the black and a complete reversal from last year, when it was forced into bankruptcy and the U.S. government took a majority stake.

CEO Ed Whitacre said he would leave his post Sept. 1. He said the GM board knew all along that he would do so after the company returned to health, and industry analysts said it was an important step leading up to the stock sale. </div></div> link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_earns_gm)

Who is the bad guy again? <span style="color: #3333FF">O B A M A</span>

Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">GM took out another TARP loan to pay off their existing TARP loan then the CEO went on TV and told people that GM had paid off their TARP loan years early. An outright lie. In addition, GM bought out AmeriCredit, a subprime lender, to handle their car loans. After the IPO, it will come out that GM is covered up with bad debt on the books and Obama and his pals will have stuffed their pockets and walked away. This is securities fraud in which the current administration is complicit. I would be happy to be wrong about this but I do not think it is going to work out well. </span>

Sev
09-06-2010, 10:56 AM
Man just think if the repubs take back the house and senate and then we have 2 years of impeachment trials.

That would just be sweet.

Then a republican win the White House back and we can have 4 more years of democrats screaming that the election was stolen again.

Meanwhile the rest of the country goes up flames.

Yup. Good days ahead.

hondo
09-06-2010, 12:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Man just think if the repubs take back the house and senate and then we have 2 years of impeachment trials.

That would just be sweet.

Then a republican win the White House back and we can have 4 more years of democrats screaming that the election was stolen again.

Meanwhile the rest of the country goes up flames.

Yup. Good days ahead. </div></div>

The very thing I said to you in another post.

'That would just be sweet.



Meanwhile the rest of the country goes up flames.

Yup. Good days ahead."


That would be sweet, huh?

Sev
09-06-2010, 02:56 PM
Yup. It would.

You see until it gets so bad that people finally cant be enabled nobody is going to learn a lesson. Especially the elitists.

You see while you and I would be raising our own crops and hunting our own food, our east coast/west coast elitists would be hunting through dumpsters for their next meal. Its a nice reality check.

hondo
09-06-2010, 03:41 PM
Hang onto your guns.
When chaos strikes, the have-nots will be coming after the haves.