Impeaching His Messiahship

[jts]

They are trying to impeach His Messiahship.

I hope they kick his xxx posterior so hard that he has to clear his throat to xxxx break wind.

[jts]

According to AJ, the impeachment of Obama is getting zero coverage in lamestream news. But it ought to be big. Obama takes orders from the UN in violation of the USA Constitution. That means we are already at the start of world government. You will pay a carbon tax, not to the state government, not to the federal government, but to the world government.

[Selene]

Jerry:

Not quite main stream, but a start...

WND EXCLUSIVE

Obama impeachment bill now in Congress

Declares president's use of military without approval 'high crime, misdemeanor'

Published: 15 hours ago

by Drew Zahn Email | Archive

Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."

Let the president 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.

In an exclusive WND column, 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.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

The exchange itself can be seen below:

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

[Peter]

Clandestine military support is always the first option, in a country like Syria or Iran, but Congress is usually consulted about the over all strategy. An incident involving Americans used to be required for a President to “defend” our interests by “attacking” militarily, like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Obama is clearly overstepping his authority continuously, and I would like to see continuous impeachment hearings for the next year to preserve our Constitution from a despotic party hack.

One international headline today is “Iran has 11,000 missiles aimed at Israel and the United States and its interests.” Events may not suit Obama’s re-election plans. Perhaps the “incident” is about to be manufactured, or caused, a bit prematurely.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

ff

[jts]

[BaalChatzaf]

Obama-care?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

O'bama may be adding another count to an Impeachment filing:

During a trip through Colorado in December of last year, President Obama spoke of his intention to implement his economic policies with or without the approval of Congress. Said Obama, “And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves.” It now appears that such a mindset applies not only to economic matters but to the distribution of foreign aid as well--in particular, foreign military aid for the Muslim Brotherhood, who now hold the reigns in Egypt.

Congress has restricted and, in fact, halted military aid to Egypt until and “unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress on basic freedoms and human rights.” After all, Christians and other practitioners of non-Islamic religions have had a tough go of it there. And of course, many Egyptian officials harbor such hatred toward the U.S. that one of the candidates for the Egyptian presidency has openly referred to America as the “infidel country” in media interviews.

Nevertheless, the news breaking now is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon announce that President Obama will “resume funding for Egypt’s military, despite Congressional restrictions and objections from human rights and democracy advocates.”

Even Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), a man with whom I’ve never agreed on anything, sees the foolishness of this endeavor: “I believe [sending the aid] would be a mistake. The new [restrictions were] intended to put the United States squarely on the side of the Egyptian people who seek a civilian government that respects fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to clearly define the terms of our future relations with the Egyptian military.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/03/21/obama-bypasses-congress-gives-1-5-billion-to-muslim-brotherhood

[jts]

Obama is a [insert cuss word] liar.

John Stossel On Obama's First Year In Office video 4:37