Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama impeachment bill now in Congress
WND ^ | March 10, 2012 | Drew Zahn

Posted on 03/11/2012 1:40:07 PM PDT by RobinMasters

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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: drudge; foreigncontrol; impeachment; nwo; un; warpowers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: RobinMasters
Voting him out is faster, neater and won't cause too much fuss.
41 posted on 03/11/2012 3:15:22 PM PDT by capt. norm (Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never run out of material. c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Before this has an opportunity to be voted down by the Democrat Socialists, the Republican Party leadership will likely stop it.


42 posted on 03/11/2012 3:17:57 PM PDT by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: giotto

Doesn’t there have to be a charge, then a trial with conviction, then move to impeach, them removal?


43 posted on 03/11/2012 3:19:03 PM PDT by svcw (CLEAN WATER http://www.longlostsis.com/PI/MayanHelp2012.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
this resolution is a hedge against Obama doing the war thing again by simply restating what the Constitution provides, and not the beginning of a congressional effort to remove O from office, at least at this time.”

A little on the late side but understandable to at least try to prevent him from doing so again...unfortunately those efforts will get bogged down in congress as par usual and bm will do as he will and apologize after the fact....should he want to go into another war he will regardless of what's in the pipeline against him......

44 posted on 03/11/2012 3:27:42 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: outofstyle

There’s always an excuse not to do the right and honorable thing.


45 posted on 03/11/2012 3:48:17 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: caww

Since NATO commands our troops congress can abdicate its duty. Obama won’t ask congress he hasn’t before. Hillary and Obama will go to the UN for ‘permission’ and NATO will take over from there.

BTW, when you see a headline “NATO troops killed” they are always AMERICANS. The state of California has lost more soldiers than nearly all the NATO countries combined. We don’t run the ‘war’ we just provide the troops so NATO can have a standing army.

This is about as messed up as a country can get, unless you’re a globalist and you applaud the unconstitutional take over of our military by foreign commanders.


46 posted on 03/11/2012 3:52:52 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
We don’t run the ‘war’ we just provide the troops so NATO can have a standing army.....This is about as messed up as a country can get, unless you’re a globalist and you applaud the unconstitutional take over of our military by foreign commanders.

I didn't realize so many of our troops were the bulk of the NATO force....but then I read years ago that as things progress to a one world order that it will be the US selected as the military might within that once it's established...and the primary reason initially why they will keep the US significant for a time...but they will be deployed on an international scale at the will of that Order once established.

What I question is how many of our men and woman will be willing to serve then? But then I consider the youth of today are pretty much indoctrinated to become "World Citizens" from our educational institutes.

47 posted on 03/11/2012 4:04:20 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
We don’t run the ‘war’ we just provide the troops so NATO can have a standing army.....This is about as messed up as a country can get, unless you’re a globalist and you applaud the unconstitutional take over of our military by foreign commanders.

I didn't realize so many of our troops were the bulk of the NATO force....but then I read years ago that as things progress to a one world order that it will be the US selected as the military might within that once it's established...and the primary reason initially why they will keep the US significant for a time...but they will be deployed on an international scale at the will of that Order once established.

What I question is how many of our men and woman will be willing to serve then? But then I consider the youth of today are pretty much indoctrinated to become "World Citizens" from our educational institutes.

48 posted on 03/11/2012 4:04:20 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
There’s always an excuse not to do the right and honorable thing.

Why sure. What else could it be but excuses from this corrupt "Two-Party Cartel" owned by the elites fro the elites. You ain't seen to worst yet by these bastards.

49 posted on 03/11/2012 4:05:10 PM PDT by Digger (If RINO is your selection then failure is your election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters; MitchellC; JaneNC; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; ...

Conservatives have been critical of Walter Jones in the past and rightly so, but he’s showing gonads that many other Republicans from safe districts don’t seem to have.


50 posted on 03/11/2012 4:10:07 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A chameleon belongs in a pet store, not the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

The republicans will show obama. They will stand in a corner and hold their breath till they turn blue. They will have obama crying for mercy in no time. grrrr


51 posted on 03/11/2012 4:32:49 PM PDT by jesseam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bullish
The Hamster-balls republicans don’t have the courage to stop the Mau-Mau from doing anything.

Hamster? More like mosquito IMHO.

52 posted on 03/11/2012 4:52:01 PM PDT by Mark17 (California, where English is a foreign language)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: caww

Take CNN with a grain of salt but here is some data to show that our STATES have many more casualties than whole countries in the NATO ‘coalition’.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html

It saddens me, and now we’re getting scuttlebutt from Navy sailors that on some of our deployed ships there isn’t ‘enough money’ to replace burned out lightbulbs, or to resurface areas that need nonskid surfaces. They are just painting it over with red paint and telling people to be careful.

Yeah they’re running to battle stations, and have to ‘be careful’ so they don’t slip and split their heads open on shoddily maintained decks.

We have an enormous problem here and Obama is just the tip of it.

Fellow citizens, we must respond to these insults to our people!


53 posted on 03/11/2012 6:16:53 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

PUT ME DOWN.


54 posted on 03/11/2012 6:25:54 PM PDT by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Yes, or whatever comes next after a double-dog dare.

That's easy. The dreaded "Triple-Dog Dare".

55 posted on 03/11/2012 8:27:41 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker; All

It’s so frustrating, I ask for input from everyone on this thread - what are the R’s so damned afraid of all the time - is it BHO??? And why can’t they unite like the Dems on at least the most important issues like this one that’s so clear-cut????

Gotta tell ya - I watched Game Change just because I wanted to see how bad the propaganda was. The only thing that surprised me was the way it showed how lily-livered McLame was in repeatedly refusing all his advisors about going after BHO’s radical ties and, in particular, the Rev. Wright influence. It also showed a scene at a rally (that I remembered) where a woman in the audience said she didn’t trust BHO and that he was an “Arab” to which McLame shook his head, smiled condescendingly and told her she was wrong and that BHO was a good, family man.

I’d forgotten just how disgusting it was, over and over, and here we are seeing the same thing yet again. So I ask - what are ALL these Repubs so afraid of??? This is our republic at stake - and don’t they realize that most of their constituents are crying out for something to be done to stop BHO???


56 posted on 03/11/2012 8:30:11 PM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

“The Dems control the Senate. If it does pass the House, it will be seen as a political move and will cost the Republicans.”

Well, that IS true. But the many good things the House have passed never get explained to the public (going back to my previous rant) because the R’s won’t talk often enough or loudly enough to counteract BHO’s slanderous spin that he daily dishes out to the sheeple.

We really DO need control of the Senate - Harry Reid is just evil.


57 posted on 03/11/2012 8:41:03 PM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; MitchellC; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; RygelXVI

Well, the impeachment resolution is the kind that Walter Jones, Jr. and Dennis Kucinich would have filed against George W. Bush, so I don’t think this is any reflection of the size of Jones’s gonads. I still want Jones thrown out on his ass in the GOP primary.

It’s funny how, in 1992, Jones was just 2% away from receiving the RAT nomination (tantamount to election) in the black-majority NC-01; he finished first in the primary with 38%, and had he gotten 40% he would have avoided the run-off that he ended up losing to a black candidate (Eva Clayton). Had Jones been elected in the NC-01 in 1992, his voting record likely would have been even more liberal than that of his late father (who represented the NC-01 before it was drawn as 57% black in 1992), and he likely would have survived future elections because the 1982 lines were declared unconstitutional and the 1994-2000 lines made the CD only like 51% black. In any event, even had he lost reelection in 1994, Jones would have never become the GOP nominee in NC-03, and Martin Lancaster would have been defeated by a different, more conservative, Republican either in 1994 or soon thereafter. So Jones’s failure to get 40% in the 1992 primary was what allowed him to represent the NC-03 for 18 years (and hopefully not a day longer), and the sine qua non behind the NC-03 having a Code Pink supporter representing it in Congress.


58 posted on 03/11/2012 8:44:15 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMPEACH BOLSHEVIK CHAIRMAN OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


59 posted on 03/11/2012 9:20:56 PM PDT by Graewoulf (( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

This is Not repeat NOT an impeachment bill. It seeks to set ground work for repealing the War Powers Act under the guise of hamstringing BHO.In reality it will hamstring every President after.


60 posted on 03/11/2012 9:34:44 PM PDT by Old Flat Toad (Pima County, home of the single vehicle accident with 40 victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson