Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Discuss about the world and people freedom as entire.

IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby lostandfound » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:31 pm

On 10/3/2002, Representative Ron Paul of Texas made a motion to declare
war on Iraq. Chairman Henry Hyde rejected the motion by declaring:
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-G ... mn-28.html
"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events,
by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer
relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are
saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare
war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this
situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore."

--Chairman Henry Hyde, 10/3/2002, in session of House of Representatives,
during hearing on H.J. Res. 114, "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
AGAINST IRAQ", discussing Ron Paul's motion to declare war.

Before you read on, please stop and re-read Chairman Hyde's statement
again, and carefully digest exactly what he said. I'll wait.

**************************************************************************
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002

The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today's world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We're still in Korea and we're still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.

The process by which we've entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress' abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.
*************************************************************

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MxHq_HMq70



http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/086 ... ?From=News

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

~Senator Barack Obama
December 20, 2007

They can't claim they didn't know.




A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z1HXylEFVK
http://www.life.com/gallery/57431/libya ... es#index/0


Just over two years into his presidency, Bush had:

Invaded and occupied Afghanistan
Invaded Iraq
Rounded up and detained hundreds of aliens right after 9/11
Established a policy of indefinite detention and torture
Created a prison camp at Guantanamo
Signed the Patriot Act, including major assaults on free speech (National Security Letters) and a near total annihilation of the Fourth Amendment
Created the Transportation Security Administration
Created the Department of Homeland Security
Instituted “Project Safe Neighborhoods” and overseen a vast increase in firearms prosecutions by the Justice Department
Signed No Child Left Behind
Rammed through Medicare Part D, adding $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the largest expansion of the welfare state in about 35 years
Rammed through Sarbanes-Oxley, the largest expansion of the corporate regulatory state perhaps since the New Deal, which has devastated the economy
Signed protectionist steel tariffs
Expanded farm subsidies
Made “free-speech zones” a commonplace
Directed the NSA (a branch of the military) to warrantlessly wiretap the American people
Accelerated the subsidization (directly and indirectly) of home ownership by minorities and others who couldn’t really afford houses, sowing the seeds for a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble, culminating in the crash of ’08
Obama has done a staggering amount of damage in just over two years, but I submit that Bush might still have him beat in terms of destruction unleashed in so short a time. Also, the war in Iraq has long-term consequences in foreign relations that are yet to be seen. Bush could very well be the Woodrow Wilson of the 21st century, having set in motion a series of devastating events humanity will suffer from for a century.

http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2011 ... than-bush/
Last edited by lostandfound on Sun May 08, 2011 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 184 time

 

Re: IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby BOBT12 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:28 pm

It is time to get rid of the retard, Chairman Henry Hyde. We must impeach Barry Obama.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-- Thomas Jefferson

”The principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are saving principles. Stand by those principles; be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.” –Frederick Douglass.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."- Patrick Henry

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."- William Penn;Thomas Jefferson's personal seal, attributed to the judges who executed King Charles I for crimes against the people.

inforwars.com
User avatar
BOBT12
Sovereign Dei Gratia
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:34 pm
Has thanked: 426 time
Have thanks: 160 time

Re: IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby lostandfound » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:28 am

Emperor Obama
by Sheldon Richman, April 7, 2011
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1104d.asp
We were warned. “Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army.... The President- general, who is to be our king after this government is established, is vested with powers exceeding those of the most despotic monarch we know of in modern times.... I challenge the politicians of the whole continent to find in any period of history a monarch more absolute....”

That was written by Benjamin Workman under the penname “Philadelphiensis,” one of the Anti-Federalists who warned in 1787-88 that the proposed Constitution would centralize power to an appalling degree, particularly in the executive branch.

Now here’s President Barack Obama defending his unilateral military intervention in the civil war raging in Libya (emphasis added):

“Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing.... [At] my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.... We knew that if we wanted — if we waited one more day — Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.... I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.... [As] President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.... Of course, there is no question that Libya — and the world — would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal.... The task that I assigned our forces — to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone — carries with it a UN mandate and international support.”

You see no reference to a congressional declaration of war or the Constitution. Philadelphiensis and his compatriots would not have been surprised. They saw early on that it wouldn’t take much for a president to become an emperor.

Obama continued: “I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests.... But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer, our own future is brighter, if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity” (emphasis added).

There in a nutshell is the imperial premise: Our future depends on the condition of the rest of mankind. Therefore, the president may bomb or invade anywhere he likes as long as he believes intervention is feasible. And as long as he can get the U.S.-dominated NATO and UN Security Council on board. (NATO, incidentally, was never established for such a purpose.) Obama’s touted “coalition” is cold comfort to those who realize that freedom and fiscal moderation at home are jeopardized by a government run amok in the world.

Once upon a time, people actually believed that a president could not constitutionally commit troops abroad without a declaration of war by Congress. With some exceptions, that belief held presidents in check for a while. But it passed away sometime after 1942, and since then presidents have gone to war — big-time and small — whenever they damn well pleased. Congress has simply been too timid to assert itself against imperial presidents. After the undeclared Vietnam war disaster, a War Powers Resolution was passed in an attempt to limit future presidents, but it was a pale substitute for the war-declaration requirement — and besides, cowardly Congresses have never pushed to enforce the resolution.

The Anti-Federalists saw it coming. We can’t say we weren’t warned.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association” at www.sheldonrichman.com.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 184 time

Re: IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby lostandfound » Sun May 08, 2011 12:23 am

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 184 time

Re: IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby lostandfound » Sun May 22, 2011 7:56 pm

Lawmakers largely silent on war powers authority in Libya
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -in-libya-

Congress has grown largely silent on the administration’s unilateral intervention into the war-torn North African nation.

The 1973 War Powers Act (WPA) — the statute President Obama invoked when he launched forces in March — requires presidents to secure congressional approval for military operations within 60 days, or withdraw forces within the next 30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8CrJmFmqAc
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 184 time

Re: IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby lostandfound » Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:05 pm

These are truly troubling days for liberty in the United States.

Last week the 60 day deadline for the president to gain congressional approval for our military engagement in Libya under the War Powers Resolution came and went. The media scarcely noticed. The bombings continued. We had a hearing on Capitol Hill on the subject, but the administration refuses to bother with the legality of its new war. It is unclear if Mr. Obama will ever obtain congressional consent, and astonishingly it is being argued that he doesn't need it.


Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution begs to differ. It clearly states that the power to declare war rests within the legislative branch – the branch closest to the people. The founders were a war-weary people, and the requirement that it would take an act of Congress to go to war was intentional. They believed war was not to be entered into lightly, so they resisted granting such decision making authority to one person. They objected to absolute warmaking power granted to Kings. It would be incredibly naïve to think a dictator could not or would not wrest power in this country.


Our Presidents can now, on their own: order assassinations, including American citizens; operate secret military tribunals; engage in torture; enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process; order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the 4th Amendment; ignore the 60-day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Power Resolution; continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight; wage war at will; and treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-rays.


Americans who are not alarmed by all of this are either not paying close attention, or are too trusting of current government officials to be concerned. Those in power right now might be trustworthy, upstanding people. But what of the leaders of the future? They will inherit all the additional powers we cede to the current position holders. Can we trust that they will not take advantage? Today's best intentions create loopholes and opportunities for tomorrow's tyrants.

Perhaps the most troubling power grab of late is the mission creep associated with the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Initiated as targeted strikes against the perpetrators of 9/11, a decade later we are still at war. With whom? Last week Congress passed a Defense Authorization bill with some very disturbing language that explicitly extends the president's war powers to just about anybody. Section 1034 of that bill states that we are at war with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and associated forces. Who are the associated forces? It also includes anyone who has supported hostilities in aid of an organization that substantially supports these associated forces. This authorization is not limited by geography, and it has no sunset provision. It doesn't matter if these associated forces are American citizens. Your constitutional rights no longer apply when the United States is "at war" with you. Would it be so hard for someone in the government to target a political enemy and connect them to al Qaeda, however tenuously, and have them declared an associated force?


http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul743.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/western-tro ... libya.html
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 184 time

Re: IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby lostandfound » Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:16 am

To Defend President Obama, One Must Criticize Candidate Obama

Those attempting to defend President Obama's claimed legal power to involve the military in the Libya War without Congressional approval have numerous problems; none is more significant than candidate Obama's own clear statement to the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage in late 2007 on this matter. In response to being asked whether "the president ha[s] constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress" -- "specifically . . . the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites" -- Obama replied: "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Note that Obama wasn't being asked whether the President has unilateral authority to order a ground invasion or a full-scale war, but merely the limited, "strategic bombing" of Iran's nuclear sites, and he replied decisively in the negative by invoking a very clear restriction on presidential authority to order military action without Congress.

Yesterday, State Department adviser Harold Koh testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the war in Libya. The Committee had also requested the appearance of top lawyers from the Justice and Defense Departments -- who, contrary to Koh, told the President that he was violating the War Powers Resolution by waging war without Congressional approval -- but the Most Transparent Administration Ever refused to produce them, instead sending only the State Department lawyer who told the President what he wanted to hear: that he did indeed have this unilateral power. Koh was confronted with candidate Obama's 2007 statement that directly contradicts the White House's current position, and Koh did the only thing he could do: insist that the Constitutional Scholar's view back then were "not legally correct" and was "too limited a statement," and that he'd be "very surprised if that's [Obama's] position" today. Watch the amazing, cringe-inducing one-minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CatCcabSmBA



In other words, said the President's designated legal spokesman, what Obama the Candidate said on this crucial issue when trying to persuade Democrats to nominate him was wrong and is now officially repudiated. Let's be clear about how significant --- and typical -- this is.

Obama's late 20o7 statements about executive power were not some off-the-cuff remarks about an ancillary issue. Rather, they were part of a statement he prepared in which he cited numerous key legal advisers (Cass Sunstein, Greg Craig, Laurence Tribe, and Jeh Johnson [now the DoD General Counsel who told him he must comply with the WPR]). More importantly, the questionnaire he was answering was exclusively about executive power: one of the central concerns for Democratic voters in the Bush era. In the questionnaire, Obama himself explained why these issues -- and his answers -- were so vital:


These are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility -- particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.


Obama himself urged voters to pay attention to the candidates' answers on executive power and to rely on them before deciding whom to "entrust" with the responsibility of the awesome powers of the Oval Office. I certainly agreed with Obama back then.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtOovfYuTA
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 184 time

Re: IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby BOBT12 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:44 pm

I don't see why anyone feels that this whole National Defense Authorization Act. bill is needed. The President should not have signed this Act that is at war against We the People.

The U.S. CIA runs Al Qaeda, we haven't had one attack by this proxy group without government fingerprints all over them, and now the the state dept., Hillary Clinton, openly supports their involvement in Libya.

And for some odd reason, the American public is now vaguely associated with this group of Hobgoblins? And for this future crime, they public should be "afraid", and subjected to unnamed forms of torture (what happen to cruel and unusual punishment, or supreme law?), with no rights under the Creator. This whole thing makes little sense.

Obama Violates Constitution Again

The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 4, 2012

More evidence Obama is at war with the Constitution – or more accurately, his globalist masters are at war with it. The following is from The Hill today:

Republican leaders in the House and Senate are blasting President Obama’s move to recess-appoint a key nominee as an “unprecedented power grab.”

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the president “arrogantly circumvented the American people” in his effort to recess-appoint a key nominee and argued the move ”fundamentally endangers” Congress’s ability to check the “excesses of the executive branch.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the effort an “extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab … [that] would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our constitution.”

http://www.infowars.com/obama-violates- ... ion-again/

Emphasis added.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-- Thomas Jefferson

”The principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are saving principles. Stand by those principles; be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.” –Frederick Douglass.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."- Patrick Henry

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."- William Penn;Thomas Jefferson's personal seal, attributed to the judges who executed King Charles I for crimes against the people.

inforwars.com
User avatar
BOBT12
Sovereign Dei Gratia
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:34 pm
Has thanked: 426 time
Have thanks: 160 time

Re: IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby BOBT12 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:23 pm

It is time to get rid of the tyrants. This is treason! Obama has violated article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84


Coup D’etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial

Congressman Jones introduces bill that would subject Panetta & Obama to impeachment


Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic, have prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce a resolution that re-affirms such behavior as an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor” under the Constitution.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, 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.”

Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“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. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They 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.”

In an effort to re-affirm the fact 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,” Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives.

The full text reads;

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.

Under the terms of Jones’ resolution, both Panetta and Obama would be subject to impeachment for abusing their power and violating the Constitution in disregarding the authority of Congress and placing a foreign power above its jurisdiction.

Despite the Pentagon’s efforts to claim that Panetta’s words were misinterpreted, the Obama administration itself has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations in relation to last year’s invasion of Libya, which was conducted without approval from Congress.

In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

In boldly asserting the authority of international powers over and above the legislative branch, Panetta and Obama are openly declaring that they no longer represent the American people and instead are water carriers for a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.

http://www.infowars.com/coup-detat-pent ... eremonial/

Emphasis added.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-- Thomas Jefferson

”The principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are saving principles. Stand by those principles; be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.” –Frederick Douglass.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."- Patrick Henry

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."- William Penn;Thomas Jefferson's personal seal, attributed to the judges who executed King Charles I for crimes against the people.

inforwars.com
User avatar
BOBT12
Sovereign Dei Gratia
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:34 pm
Has thanked: 426 time
Have thanks: 160 time

Re: IMPEACHMENT!!! dream-on.

Postby quasimodo » Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:22 pm

Media Cover-Up Of Obama Impeachment Exposed!

http://www.westernjournalism.com/media- ... Journalism
quasimodo
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1718
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:12 pm
Location: Austin township, Republic of Texas
Has thanked: 115 time
Have thanks: 199 time

Next

Return to End of America

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
suspicion-preferred