Obama Impeachment bill now in Congress

[Faster horses]

Let President Barack Obama be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, "it is the sense of Congress" that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama's authorization of military force in Libya.

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

"This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta's declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations," Tancredo writes. "This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta's policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution."


Post Continues on www.wnd.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Steve]

I read a bit on this..

the bill is not really a bill to impeach Obama for what he has done, if he wanted to impeach him he should have made the move when Obama was waging a war against Libya


his motive isn't to impeach Obama, but to stop him from taking military action against Syria or Iran...

do we really want Obama less aggressive on Iran?

 

[Tam]

I read a bit on this..

the bill is not really a bill to impeach Obama for what he has done, if he wanted to impeach him he should have made the move when Obama was waging a war against Libya


his motive isn't to impeach Obama, but to stop him from taking military action against Syria or Iran...

do we really want Obama less aggressive on Iran?

There is no reason for him to be less aggressive on Iran. He just has to do it LEGALLY. It is his attitude he can go it alone when it comes to Foreign wars that is making people mad. There is a process to go through and it is not his radical friends, The UN or NATO that needs to give him the OK. By the US Constitution it is the CONGRESS. HE NEEDS TO Remember that. :x

 

[Steve]

I read a bit on this..

the bill is not really a bill to impeach Obama for what he has done, if he wanted to impeach him he should have made the move when Obama was waging a war against Libya


his motive isn't to impeach Obama, but to stop him from taking military action against Syria or Iran...

do we really want Obama less aggressive on Iran?

There is no reason for him to be less aggressive on Iran. He just has to do it LEGALLY. It is his attitude he can go it alone when it comes to Foreign wars that is making people mad. There is a process to go through and it is not his radical friends, The UN or NATO that needs to give him the OK. By the US Constitution it is the CONGRESS. HE NEEDS TO Remember that. :x

while I do not disagree with your comment,... it is an election year.. and we have a president that cares more about an election then our security..

he (obama), will just use this as a reason to justify his inaction on Iran...


even past that... somehow it doesn't add up...

What we have is an anti-war politician pushing an impeachment to stop an anti-war president from going to war...

 

[hypocritexposer]

The White House artfully pushed back Thursday on a report in an Israeli newspaper that claimed the U.S. offered Israel high-tech weaponry like bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes in exchange for a pledge to hold off on attacking Iran until 2013.

http://patdollard.com/2012/03/obama-tries-to-bribe-israel-with-weapons-to-withhold-iran-attack-until-after-u-s-election/

 

[Steve]

Here's the two points everyone is missing.

1. Obama is willing to risk Iran getting a bomb, and therefor Israel's very existence, in order to keep any negative results of an attack from hurting his re-election chances.

2. Obama could easily get the weapons mentioned below, weapons perhaps critical for an attack on Iran to be successful, to Israel NOW, but isn't, in order to bribe Israel to risk its very existence in order to help his re-election chances.

The White House artfully pushed back Thursday on a report in an Israeli newspaper that claimed the U.S. offered Israel high-tech weaponry like bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes in exchange for a pledge to hold off on attacking Iran until 2013.

there is a pattern here to go by..

EPA rules.. will be finalized in 2013..

Keystone XL pipeline will be denied in 2013

Bunker-busters for Israel will be denied in 2013


so why not push off any other hard decisions until 2013... or any decision he feels may hurt his re-election..

if that isn't enough of a pattern on Obama's decision making,. then look further back at his vote of "present' an you would see historically he is absent when the tough decisions were made..

 

[Tam]

The one thing he is not going to be able to push back until 2013, that I bet he wishes he could as it is going to hurt his re-election is another debt ceiling increase. With High Gas Prices, over 8% unemployment, and another debt ceiling raise right at election time that is a trificta that he is going to have a tough time over coming. Add to that his blatant attack on Religious beliefs and a collapsing Foreign policy and what does he have besides a couple hundred million dollars to run on. :?

 

[hypocritexposer]

The one thing he is not going to be able to push back until 2013, that I bet he wishes he could as it is going to hurt his re-election is another debt ceiling increase. With High Gas Prices, over 8% unemployment, and another debt ceiling raise right at election time that is a trificta that he is going to have a tough time over coming. Add to that his blatant attack on Religious beliefs and a collapsing Foreign policy and what does he have besides a couple hundred million dollars to run on. :?

If one grows the Government, as he has, and pays for it in a manner that will slow/stalls economic growth/tax revenue, one thing is for sure, it will not bode well for that person, or, the Country.

He can give out as many "free" condoms and abortions as he wishes, he is either done, or he will continue on through another 4 years and the Country is finished.

The voters will decide........


choose wisely OT

 

[Tam]

If Obama is re-elected for another four years Canada better beef up border security so we don't have low life big mouth Canada hating ex sheriffs from Valley Country Montana coming North and forgetting to go home.