Barack and his minions are way out there in the left-lands of marxism and fascism. They have declared war on individualism, the right to contract, the right to own property, and now the right to free speech: "The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece... White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."... But by urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month with Dunn's comments... Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." "She criticized 'Fox News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."

Mr. Barack Obama is a disgrace to the presidency of the United States and should be removed.

Article II Sec 4
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. During the Constitutional Convention, some of the Framers urged that "maladministration" be added to the list of impeachable offenses. But that was not included .

Ok ,so removing maladministration as a cause for action,make a case for impeachment of President under the charges of treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I expect after last week the Maoist Ms Dung will be the next with bus tire tracks on her back.

"Back in 1970, Rep. Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." That is probably a reasonable definition, consistent with the intentions of the Founding Fathers. "
See: Impeach Bush, Impeach Bush (http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/offenses.html)

Yes ,for most of our history ,impeachment and the threat of impeachment have been a political tool. The exception was Nixon who would've been convicted if he did not resign. And even in Nixon's case ,much of the case against him was political.

That in my view is a misuse of Congressional powers. In the case of Andrew Johnson he did not fully support the Reconstruction goals after the Civil War. In Clintoon's case a very weak case was properly disposed of by the Senate. (there was a justifiable cause against him on the issue of treason ,but Congress did not pursue that )

I hold a higher standard for the ultimate use of the impeachment clause . I understand that "high crimes and misdemeanors " can mean almost anything . But I favor Congressional restraint in almost everything they do ,and invoking their power to impeach is no exception.

It's time to drawup articles of impeachmentHello George:

Sounds like spilt milk, to me. You had a chance to KEEP him out of office... But, the VOTERS didn't agree with you... You're not going to reverse the election by taking this course... As a matter of fact, if you guys tried this, you'll further marginalize your party.

But, if that's all the Repubs in congress have to do, have at it... It'll be the END of you.

excon

It's not a matter of reversing an election; there are much higher principles involved, and I know you are aware of them. It's a matter of righting the moral compass of the United States, especially the morals of the highest elected official under the constitution. It's bad enough when the press has become lap dogs instead of watch dogs; it's another matter entirely when the government assaults the right of the press to do what it is intended to do: shine the light of day on the darkness that consumes the souls of such as Obama and his crowd.

As much as one might like to remove Obama from the office I don't see any case from impeachment.

Did you hear Dunn's response to Mao being one of her favorite philosophers? It was a joke.

George ,besides rhetoric I see nothing yet illegal or unconstitutional in the administration's insane paranoid decision "wage war " against Fox. I think it's self defeating and petty foolishness on their part .But no action has been taken that crosses the line.

Fox's ratings and audience will continue to grow as the WH bleats their inanities .

It's a matter of righting the moral compass of the United States, especially the morals of the highest elected official under the constitution. it's another matter entirely when the government assaults the right of the press to do what it is intended to do: shine the light of day on the darkness that consumes the souls of such as Obama and his crowd.Hello again, George:

Wow! That's a lot of drama for nothing more than a political decision. I don't agree with the decision, by the way, but it certainly ain't worthy of the hysteria you're exhibiting... I don't see an "assault". I don't see any immoral behavior. And, I still see FOX noise doing its thing seeking out that darkness you mentioned...

If ANYTHING, he gave FOX ammunition... Didn't somebody say, that you shouldn't criticize somebody who buys ink by the barrel? That's what Obama did, and I think he'll pay a price.

But, come on George, if the pres torturing people didn't stir you to bring impeachment charges, I can't imagine why dissing FOX would. But, you guys continually surprise me.

excon

I got to agree with Tom and Speech on this one. As much as I dislike Obama's policies and his stated goals, he has not taken any action that is an impeachable offense. Implementing policies we don't like isn't illegal.

Even the act of shunning Fox News and refusing to grant them access to the Administration isn't illegal. There is no REQUIREMENT that the WH give ANY news outlet access to its personnel. They can pick who they do interviews with as much as they want. It may be evidence of political bias, but it is not illegal.

There are no grounds for an impeachment of Obama.

Elliot

I think this about sums up what you've been saying George.

As for impeachment - How do you impeach a President who is an imposter and not really able to legally hold the office in the first place? That's been bandied about on the net for months and months. It presents a real quandry in that he is not legally the President as he was not legally supposed to run.

R. Emanuel wants to control the press and the TV any way he can. He is only one of the shadow "presidents" that we are currently saddled with.

As for impeachment - How do you impeach a President who is an imposter and not really able to legally hold the office in the first place? LOL!
You can't be serious?

Barack Obama: a small, itty bitty man; how is this crowd going to react as, more and more, the American people tell him and his crowd, "No, we aren't!"?

YouTube - 10/22/09 White House tried to exclude Fox News from "pool" interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E11PgsH6MmM)

how is this crowd going to react as, more and more, the American people tell him and his crowd, "No, we aren't!"Hello again, George:

Yeah, I don't think Obama should engage in this nonsense... But, it ain't impeachable. Look. If he fails to deliver good health care reform, and end to "don't ask, don't tell", and the legalization of marijuana, I'll be for impeaching him too.

excon

Look. If he fails to deliver good health care reform, and end to "don't ask, don't tell", and the legalization of marijuana, I'll be for impeaching him too.

excon

Obama's given tacit approval to marijuana, so you are 1/3 of the way home. Oh - I mean - he probably doesn't know anything about what his justice dept is up to, so let's not say he's accountable for that!

George , I think the press pool handled that correctly. Despite the 1st amendment ;there is no guarantee to equal access to the President for the press. These type of games happen from administration to administration. Obama of course takes it to new levels as he's won't to do about everything because he is so thin skinned and petty.

Obama of course takes it to new levels as he's won't to do about everything because he is so thin skinned and petty.

Yeah, while lambasting Fox News as not real news he sits around and whines about them in the White House (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss) with such fair-minded 'journalists' as Olbermman, Maddow and Dowd.


Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of mostly liberal columnists and commentators, including Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times, Mr. Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the network, according to people briefed on the conversation.

Geeze what a rogues gallery!! I bet Madcow was in her glory !

Thank goodness there's no pettiness here! Imagine!

Lol last I checked I was not the leader of the free world.

Neither is the president of the U.S. so your point is irrelevant.

Thank goodness there's no pettiness here! Imagine!

Pot, meet kettle

Pot, meet kettleLOL! That's what I was going to say to you! Great minds think alike I guess. Hey, show me where I'm being petty in this thread.

Neither is the president of the U.S. so your point is irrelevant.

Ya got that right. This President isn't much of a leader of anything. But he is a supporter of communists, rogue regimes, and terrorists.

Elliot

Hello:

Hello yee right wing masses who sufferuth from thy short term memory losseth...

George W. Dufus, on October 17, 2006, invited conservative radio hosts Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved to the White House. I don't think Olbermann was invited...

I'm just saying...

excon

Hello:

Hello yee right wing masses who sufferuth from thy short term memory losseth...

George W. Dufus, on October 17, 2006, invited conservative radio hosts Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved to the White House. I don't think Olbermann was invited...

Was he simultaneously shutting out, demeaning and otherwise marginalizing a particular network while asking for snoops to rat them out for any perceived bias? I didn't think so.

LOL! That's what I was going to say to you! Great minds think alike I guess. Hey, show me where I'm being petty in this thread.

Sure you were... and who said it had to in this thread? You just said "here."

I gotta agree with Tom and Speech on this one. As much as I dislike Obama's policies and his stated goals, he has not taken any action that is an impeachable offense. Implementing policies we don't like isn't illegal.

Even the act of shunning Fox News and refusing to grant them access to the Administration isn't illegal. There is no REQUIREMENT that the WH give ANY news outlet access to its personnel. They can pick and choose who they do interviews with as much as they want. It may be evidence of political bias, but it is not illegal.

There are no grounds for an impeachment of Obama.

Elliot

There might be.

Now the WH has told financial insturions that took TARP money how much their executives can make. Since they took public money, that MIGHT be justified.

NOW we hear that OTHER institutions that DID NOT take public money are being told how much THEIR executives can make.

I have to think that IS illegal.

Follow this reasoning to a logical conclusion.

If the WH can do this to these executives, they can tell YOU how much YOU can make.

In fact, if they are not stopped, down the road, they will be telling us a LOT of things we won't want to hear.

FREE MEN ARE NOT EQUAL, EQUAL MEN ARE NOT FREE

Most people who voted for Mr. Obama, and most minorities, specifically the African American race, know specifically why all this nonsense about impeachment, the comparisons to Hitler, and all the other outlandish attempts to belittle the President are being said and written about.. It's simply because of the color of his skin, Plain and Simple. And no matter how you try to say it's NOT about RACE, we know the truth. It will take 2-4 years to undue all the damage done by Pres Bush, the worst President in American History. He served 8 years and even cheated his way into the White House and no one said anything about impeachment. Obama hasn't been in office one year, has his hands full with the mess that Bush left, and has to fight his own people because they cannot stomach, or digest the fact that America has a BLACK president. That's what is is all about. You can try to disguise this fact with your nonsense all you want. Black Americans are not that stupid, and can see clearly through your racial subterfuge.

Most people who voted for Mr. Obama, and most minorities, specifically the African American race, know specifically why all this nonsense about impeachment, the comparisons to Hitler, and all the other outlandish attempts to belittle the President are being said and written about .. It's simply because of the color of his skin, Plain and Simple. And no matter how you try to say it's NOT about RACE, we know the truth. It will take 2-4 years to undue all the damage done by Pres Bush, the worst President in American History. He served 8 years and even cheated his way into the White House and no one said anything about impeachment. Obama hasn't been in office one year, has his hands full with the mess that Bush left, and has to fight his own people because they cannot stomach, or digest the fact that America has a BLACK president. That's what is is all about. You can try to disguise this fact with your nonsense all you want. Black Americans are not that stupid, and can see clearly through your racial subterfuge.

You'r right! I don't like him because of his color!

He's not black, he's RED.

And BTW, how is it that African Americans voted for him as a block vote? Is that not racist?

Your side DID call for impeachment for Bush.

You should listen to Fox News some, it would help clear your head.

The first question about TARP is how did a program to purchase toxic assets become a tool to seize equity positions in financial institutions ?

As you know I challenge the Constitutionality of many things that is happening ;especially the plan to compel people to buy into a national insurance policy. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/constitutionality-universal-health-care-405829.html

Until I see actual articles of impeachemnt drawn up by serious people I cannot take this talk of impeachment seriously . There are too many other battles to wage to preserve the country .I say concentrate your efforts on getting liberty loving individuals elected .

George
Citibank is 34% owned by the American people, why would the Obots aim to undermine the bank's recruiting and retention rates and guarantee that second rate has been talent occupies key positions in the bank ? It really is stupid on face value. It's like turning the bank we "own" into another civil service position... like working in the Post Office.

Why would anyone of talent become a Citi Exec. When they could just as easily get recruited at a higher paying institution ?
Understanding that ;it is critical for Pay Commisar Ken Feinberg to level the playing field by forcing the other institutions to adopt the pay ceiling he's imposing on the zombies .

[ I have a proposition to Feinberg. I'll oversee the destruction of CitiBank for half the pay he's offering the CEO .]

As for the Constitutionality of Feinberg's activities... I don't recall Congress giving him the authority to regulate the pay of the zombies ,let alone the pay of any other institution in the financial markets. Sen.Sheets Byrd understands this and objected to the appointment of Czars back in Feb. He has not been heard from since.

The president can have any advisors he wants,but they act in advisory roles and have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, and the Constitution is very clear about the Senate's mandate to 'advise and consent '.
So yes ;all these czars are unconstitutional in the role they play in the Obama Administration.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/zombies-1.jpg

Yup due to government intervention and a huge outlay of our money ;we have turned dead banks into the undead.

As for the Constitutionality of Feinberg's activities......I don't recall Congress giving him the authority to regulate the pay of the zombies ,let alone the pay of any other institution in the financial markets. Sen.Sheets Byrd understands this and objected to the appointment of Czars back in Feb. He has not been heard from since.

The president can have any advisors he wants,but they act in advisory roles and have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, and the Constitution is very clear about the Senate's mandate to 'advise and consent '.
So yes ;all these czars are unconstitutional in the role they play in the Obama Administration.

Most appreciative of your insight, and the czars are puppets; the president is doing these things. It is a full-blown takeover of the most hostile sort.

There might be.

Now the WH has told financial insturions that took TARP money how much their executives can make. Since they took public money, that MIGHT be justified.

NOW we hear that OTHER institutions that DID NOT take public money are being told how much THEIR executives can make.

I have to think that IS illegal.

Follow this reasoning to a logical conclusion.

If the WH can do this to these executives, they can tell YOU how much YOU can make.

In fact, if they are not stopped, down the road, they will be telling us a LOT of things we won't want to hear.

FREE MEN ARE NOT EQUAL, EQUAL MEN ARE NOT FREE

I happen to agree that it is "illegal"... but only in the civil sense, not the criminal sense. It is a violation of contract law, not a violation of CRIMINAL law.

Now... if the execs decide to sue the WH for contact violation, and if the courts rule in the execs' favor, and Obama CONTINUES to violate civil law, THEN he would be subject to impeachment for violating the edicts of the courts... especially if the SCOTUS is the one that hands down the ruling.

But as things stand now, there is no basis for impeachment. There is only the basis for a civil court lawsuit against the WH.

Elliot

Most people who voted for Mr. Obama, and most minorities, specifically the African American race, know specifically why all this nonsense about impeachment, the comparisons to Hitler, and all the other outlandish attempts to belittle the President are being said and written about .. It's simply because of the color of his skin, Plain and Simple. And no matter how you try to say it's NOT about RACE, we know the truth. It will take 2-4 years to undue all the damage done by Pres Bush, the worst President in American History. He served 8 years and even cheated his way into the White House and no one said anything about impeachment. Obama hasn't been in office one year, has his hands full with the mess that Bush left, and has to fight his own people because they cannot stomach, or digest the fact that America has a BLACK president. That's what is is all about. You can try to disguise this fact with your nonsense all you want. Black Americans are not that stupid, and can see clearly through your racial subterfuge.

I suppose that the Black community voted 90% for Obama because he was the most experienced man for the job, right? No racism there, huh?

Bush managed to stave of recession for 8 years, managed to keep the country from being attacked again after 9/11 (when the Presidents for the 30 years BEFORE Bush failed to stop such attacks repeatedly... the USA was attacked roughly twice a year on average) and freed 50 million Muslims from dictatorial regimes.

Meanwhile, Obama has quintupled the national budget deficit, nearly doubled the national debt, has allowed unemployment to jump to 10% (17% REAL Unemployment) after promising that it wouldn't go above 8%, spent $3 trillion on a stimulus bill that his own economists are saying DIDN'T WORK and won't work in the future, is unilaterally disarming at the same time that Iran and North Korea are obtaining nuclear weapons, and is failing on the simple job of distributing the swine flu vaccine... but still thinks that the government can do a better job of handling health care than private companies.

But Bush is "the worst president in history" and Obama is "the savior".

What an idiot.

Elliot

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/zombies-1.jpg

Family shots? Or just pictures of random Obama followers?

You crazy jews! :D

Hello George:

Sounds like spilt milk, to me. You had a chance to KEEP him out of office... But, the VOTERS didn't agree with you... You're not going to reverse the election by taking this course... As a matter of fact, if you guys tried this, you'll further marginalize your party.

But, if that's all the Repubs in congress have to do, have at it... It'll be the END of you.

excon

YEE HAW!
That is the second time I said that today. :eek:
I live in NY but I am reading Gone with the wind and I think I'm going redneck .
So scary ,not funny ;)

You crazy jews! :D

That's pretty cold and rude and nasty.

Thats pretty cold and rude and nasty.Jews made the best zombies, it's well known and funny. Here (http://www.jewishjournal.com/geekheeb/item/top_10_reasons_why_jews_would_make_great_zombies_2 0091002/) and here (http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2007/07/25/New-Zombie-movie-Night-of-the-living-Jews). Why didn't come to me defense when he made reference to the zombies being my family members? :confused:

Jews made the best zombies, it's well known and funny. Here (http://www.jewishjournal.com/geekheeb/item/top_10_reasons_why_jews_would_make_great_zombies_2 0091002/) and here (http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2007/07/25/New-Zombie-movie-Night-of-the-living-Jews). Why didn't come to me defense when he made reference to the zombies being my family members? :confused:

I overreacted,Im sorry .
Its hard to show funny or sarcastic on line.
That why we have emotion's :eek: duh.
Did not mean to put you down but I did not know you were joking.
Its all good ,we are :cool:

Jews made the best zombies, it's well known and funny. Here (http://www.jewishjournal.com/geekheeb/item/top_10_reasons_why_jews_would_make_great_zombies_2 0091002/) and here (http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2007/07/25/New-Zombie-movie-Night-of-the-living-Jews). Why didn't come to me defense when he made reference to the zombies being my family members? :confused:

No... we make the best GOLEMS. We leave the Zombies to everyone else. Everyone knows that a Golem can kick a zombie's a$$ any day of the week.

Damn it, sorry, I need to brush up on that.

No... we make the best GOLEMS


This is true... us Goyim don't make good Golems at all .