Impeachment!

So Now it has been officially stated.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65035.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obama_attacks_libya_and_wheres.html

There is much more.

As it was stated that Obama wants to declare an attack without the authority of the congress and is taking DIRECT orders from the UN.

Obama is already accused of treason and is breaking the law as president.
If this goes further on then there would be a massive talk about impeaching the president.

Obama states that he "DOESN'T NEED" congresses permission to start an attack or war against another nation, and also states he is taking direct orders from the UN, and that in many cases is a serious crime against America.

So I am asking you this, should the American President Barack Obama ignore congress and do what he pleases thus leading to a strong potential impeachment?

Is it okay to take DIRECT orders from the UN and not from the congress?

I leave those questions up to you Fakku-ers to answer.


Now my next topic: Obama pushing the agenda to start war with Iran.

http://www.alternet.org/world/154479/10_myths_about_iran_driving_the_insane_push_for_war_--_and_why_they're_dead_wrong/

http://themadjewess.com/2012/02/10/trump-was-right-obama-starting-war-with-iran-to-get-re-elected-obama-signs-exec-order-declaring-war-w-iran/

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/17/obama-officials-iran-sanctions-will-fail-leading-to-war/

http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2012/2/26/194355/862/Diary/Why-Obama-might-start-a-war-with-Iran-for-realsies-

Why start a war with a country who does NOT threaten national security and doesn't even plan on making nuclear bombs. It even states that Iran is NOT, I repeat NOT making any nuclear bombs.

Yes it is clear that Iran hates America and it's government, but that reason alone shouldn't push Obama to start a war again? I mean we just got back our troops!!


What is YOUR opinion and how do YOU think the situation should be dealt with?

Please check in yes or no and the reason for it and what other solutions there are to fixing things.

This might sound like a conspiracy I just wrote, but I am more than happy to accept your opinions in this matter.

*Please if there are any corrections I must make then reply with the correct data and link.*

So how is this different then the last five prez and executive powers?

No difference at all.
Except it might damage America in a way that will take much more than a mere decade to fix.

From the view of our boys' families, I would give Obama a big FUCK YOU in the face. Them soldiers were barely pulled out of Iraq and now it's coming to this? If this happens for real, Obama might as well be kicked out of office immediately.

From the taxpayer's view, this will only mean heavier taxes than ever. This will cause an endless chain of economic trouble; higher taxes and higher living costs, further inflation and so on.

The irony of it all is that Obama was awarded a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE only 3 years ago, and now he's on the verge of moving against Iran who hasn't done anything to trigger a violent reaction against it.

IMO, effective diplomacy should be deployed. There are some foes that will simply not listen, but it does not seem like the Iranians are in such a state. Hatred and more suffering are the only things born of war, which is why I believe that peaceful methods should be deployed.

So Obama sides with half the NATO and helps bomb Libya a county with terrorist ties and ambitions and there a push for impeachment.. even though he has the powers to bomb anyone he pleases like:

GW with Afghanistan/Iraq
Clinton with Sudan and Afghanistan
Big daddy bush with Panama and Iraq
Reagan with Grenada and Lebanon. Oh yeah he bomb Libya too.

Shit Crater is the only American president that did use has powers to bomb someone had he had the best reason to.. Iran. Let's not forget there was a plan to impeach bush and Clinton except Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.. for a hummer with a fat jew.

[color=#2e1a6b]The problem is that the constitution is very vague when describing the grounds for impeachment


[color=#2e1a6b]The president is breaking the supreme law of that land, but apparently that's not enough for the congress to impeach him.

Iran is a threat(nuclear program) to Isreal which is one of America's greatest allies in the Middle East which means they are also a threat to the US. The last time the US used a peaceful method North Korea continued their nuclear program.
Edit: this is nothing new presidents in the pat have defied congress.

Thank you for the info. I am sure it's gonna be juicy resources.

George Washington gave us some warnings about alliances in his Farewell Address of 1796. Here are some quotes from his letter:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world"

"Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"

to be fair, he did say that we could use alliances, but only in an emergency, which clearly isn't the case with israel

"we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies"

[color=#2e1a6b]No they aren't.

this is why George Washington was against alliances, because then we would get in an unnecessary wars that we shouldn't be involved in, and we would use the alliance as an excuse to say that our national security is endangered, even though it's not.

I also read something similar from what George Washington wrote.

Different countries have different policies and by joining is gonna create complicated policies under alliances.

George Washington even warned us.

Thank you for this wonderful info, I am sure to look it up my Fakku friend.

I hope that hypocritical egotistical jackass gets the boot. I find it stupid how things have gotten this far, and everyone have just now thought about canning his ass. Obama: hmm the dept is getting huge... O I got a idea let's waste more money.

This is what the country gets for voting a black president based on his false words and their fantasy of having a new color in the white house.

I am not implying anything racist here.

I would like to ask this:

How biased are you, OP? I noticed you ignored anything that could be interpreted as a "pro" to the situation. That is not good journalism.

No no, I didn't mean anything to imply I am biased, I am just asking if there are any other solutions to this problem.

Don't get me wrong, I just don't see any positive meaning in this situation at the moment, but if you have a different answer then please, I am open for anything.

I very much agree with what you're saying, but you still need to cite ANYTHING that could be a pro in this situation. You can't just pile on the cons and say you're not biased. Luckily you didn't say you're not biased, but if you had, I would have had to have given you a big "op is a fag" sticker.

Also, you might want to get some better sources. Those articles reminded me more of blog posts than what you would see in a newspaper.

Ron Paul even said it that what Obama did is an act of treason.

It is everywhere, that is why I am posting this topic.

Can you be any [u] more [/i] loaded OP?
Executive order has always been a right of the head of the executive branch so there is no need to even state Obama doesn't need congress' permission to start an attack. Take to consideration I said attack, which is what he is limited to. The Executive branch may not in any scenario declare war on an enemy or sovereign state and can only send a contingent force for a limited period. In addition to this, during any time the legislative branch can restrict executive order or pass a mandate forcing a scale down in military forces and the judicial branch can check the actual executive order as either unconstitutional or a rough exploitation of executive right and require an immediate belay of the order itself. As such there is no need for an impeachment which is saved for only the most serious offenses committed during presidency. So what if Obama's opposition says its treason? Unless Obama is accused by the federal government of treason, slander like this has no meaning.In addition, give me a direct cite from the UN ordering President Obama to take ANY offensive action, let alone a war. From what I can take from your opening post you cite a year old blog entry on the libyan engagement which we effectively had nothing more than a support role. Now, you also mention that we don't need to go to war with a country that doesn't endanger national security, Iran, as it does not even plan to make nuclear weapons. That is entirely correct, well, if Iran truly didn't endanger national security.

How Iran endangers national security analysis
- Weakens overall US heg in middle east, links back to how you mentioned we were already in a withdraw of the overall area of the middle east.
- Endangers an ally, escalation and increasing flashpoint scenarios will eventually lead to US intervention anyways, first strike directives should be made to allevate potential damage
Now for cited evidence.
US strength deters Iran and prevents conflict in the Gulf – reassures allies
McGreal, 2010, Guardian's Washington correspondent and former BBC journalist in Central America and merchant seaman.
[Chris McGreal, “US raises stakes on Iran by sending in ships and missiles” Guardian, January 31, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear
-us-missiles-gulf]

Tension between the US and Iran heightened dramatically today with the disclosure that Barack Obama is deploying a missile shield to protect American allies in the Gulf from attack by Tehran. The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait – and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations. American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by Iran and reassuring Gulf states fearful that Tehran might react to sanctions by striking at US allies in the region. Washington is also seeking to discourage Israel from a strike against Iran by demonstrating that the US is prepared to contain any threat.


Iranian hegemony threatens to destroy the entire Middle East and Afghanistan
Krauthammer, 07 (Charles, National Review Online, 9/21. “Before the Volcano Explodes”,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmRkZWM3ZDEzNjIzNjY1ZmM2M2NkY2E3YjNmMTBiNGY=)

Tensions are already extremely high because of Iran’s headlong rush to go nuclear. In fending off sanctions and possible military action, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has chosen a radically aggressive campaign to assemble, deploy, flaunt, and partially activate Iran’s proxies in the Arab Middle East: †¨†¨(1) Hamas launching rockets into Israeli towns and villages across the border from the Gaza Strip. Its intention is to invite an Israeli reaction, preferably a bloody and telegenic ground assault. †¨†¨(2) Hezbollah heavily rearmed with Iranian rockets transshipped through Syria and preparing for the next round of fighting with Israel. The Third Lebanon War, now inevitable, awaits only Tehran’s order.†¨†¨(3) Syria, Iran’s only Arab client state, building up forces across the Golan Heights frontier with Israel. And on Wednesday, yet another anti-Syrian member of Lebanon’s parliament is killed in a massive car bombing.†¨†¨(4) The al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards training and equipping Shiite extremist militias in the use of the deadliest IEDs and rocketry against American and Iraqi troops. Iran is similarly helping the Taliban to attack NATO forces in Afghanistan.†¨†¨Why is Iran doing this? Because it has its eye on a single prize: the bomb. It needs a bit more time, knowing that once it goes nuclear, it becomes the regional superpower and Persian Gulf hegemon. †¨†¨Iran’s assets in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq are poised and ready. Ahmadinejad’s message is this: If anyone dares attack our nuclear facilities, we will fully activate our proxies, unleashing unrestrained destruction on Israel, moderate Arabs, Iraq, and U.S. interests — in addition to the usual, such as mining the Strait of Hormuz and causing an acute oil crisis and worldwide recession.†¨†¨This is an extremely high-stakes game. The time window is narrow. In probably less than two years, Ahmadinejad will have the bomb.†¨†¨The world is not quite ready to acquiesce. The new president of France has declared a nuclear Iran “unacceptable.” The French foreign minister warned that “it is necessary to prepare for the worst” — and “the worst, it’s war, sir.”†¨†¨Which makes it all the more urgent that powerful sanctions be slapped on the Iranian regime. Sanctions will not stop Ahmadinejad. But there are others in the Iranian elite who might stop both him and the nuclear program before the volcano explodes. These rival elites may be radical but they are not suicidal. And they believe, with reason, that whatever damage Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic folly may inflict upon the region and the world, on Crusader and Jew, on infidel and believer, the one certain result of such an eruption is Iran’s Islamic republic buried under the ash.


Iran is the root of all Middle East instability
Zuckerman, 07 (Mortimer, “Bad Options on Iran”, U.S. News & World Report, 4/23, infotrac)

Look behind the curtain of virtually every major problem in the Middle East, and you will find Iran: killings in Iraq; arms and money for Hezbollah's assaults on Israel and Hezbollah's attempts to usurp the elected government of Lebanon; support of Syria as the hotelier of the region's major terrorist groups; support and training of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and sleeper networks in countries beyond; promotion of a messianic revolutionary ideology that has deepened the Sunni-Shiite divide; the reckless seizure of 15 British sailors and marines as hostages; and defiance of the U.N. in pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Only the United States has the will and the capacity to constrain Iran. Most members of the EU and the U.N. like to believe that Iran's nuclear ambitions, and its meddling in terror, are manageable challenges that can be addressed without military force or serious economic pressure. President Bush thinks otherwise. He is right. To limit the options for countermeasures is to increase the threat. The Iranians cannot be allowed to believe military force is ruled out. Admittedly, however, we are severely constrained by our commitments to Iraq; by the war-weariness of Congress; and not least by the way Iran has dispersed and buried its nuclear facilities. How do you contain a state that nurtures terror in the shadows? And how can Iraq be restored to its traditional balancing role when the leading Shiite parties in Baghdad look to co-religionists in Iran?

Iranian aggression is the greatest threat to world peace
New Agencies, 09 [News Agencies, 6/24/09, “Israel: Iran’s Aggression Makes it Greatest Threat to World Peace” Haaretz pg. http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-iran-s-aggression-makes-it-greatest-threat-to-world-peace-1.278636]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday praised Iranians protesting against the election results and said Tehran's "aggressive and violent" behavior made it the greatest threat to world peace. "I think we have to recognize that the greatest threat is the kind of aggressive and violent behavior that we see coming from Iran," Netanyahu told a news conference in Rome. "Iran is not only supporting its terrorist proxies that oppose peace - Hezbollah and Hamas - it is also repressing its own people," he said. "I believe that the courage shown by the people of Iran in facing bullets in the streets for the sake of freedom is something that deserves the salute of free men and women everywhere," said the prime minister.

Reducing military forces emboldens Iran and guarantees they get nuclear weapons
Canada Free Press 7/19 (Alan Caruba, 7/19/10, " US Looks Weak as Iran Flips Off the World ", http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25552)

For months now, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, the owner and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, has been writing increasingly desperate pleas for the Obama administration to do something about the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East and the world, Iran. “When Barack Obama became president, Iran had perhaps several thousand centrifuges enriching uranium. Now it may have thousands more,” wrote Zuckerman in the August edition. “What's at stake here is too menacing for the world to delude itself that Iran will somehow change course. It won't.” It must be very frustrating to be a multi-millionaire media mogul and yet unable to do much about an impending disaster other than warn about it. My sense is that it falls on deaf ears at the White House. Americans got a glimpse of the President's indifference to the U.S. military when, early in his first year he proposed that veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost the federal government pays for the treatment of injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty. “Look, it's an all volunteer force,” said Obama. “Nobody made these guys to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice? It doesn't compute,” adding, “I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans.” He backed off that proposal and, of course, later sent 30,000 more troops to the front lines in Afghanistan, the war he deemed the most important. Most observers deem it an unwinnable war. How does one train an Afghan army when an estimated 85% of its soldiers can neither read, nor write? Anyone as dense as Obama should not be allowed to be Commander-in-Chief, but he is and, worse for America and all other nations, he likely has no idea of the dangers involved in reducing the nation's military capabilities at a time when Iran is closing in on becoming a nuclear threat to the Middle East and beyond. “So, if Iran succeeds,” warns Zuckerman, “it would be seen as a major defeat and open our government to doubts about its power and resolve to shape events in the Middle East. Friends would respond by distancing themselves from Washington; foes would aggressively challenge U.S. policies.” Writing in The Wall Street Journal, David Kay, the man who led the U.N. inspections after the Persian Gulf War and later led the CIA's Iraq Survey Group following the 2003 invasion, dismantled the Obama administration claims that either economic sanctions or a weapons inspection program in Iran will deter the Iranians. “As a former weapons inspector, I have very bad news: A weapons inspection regime in Iran will not work.” Don't look to the United Nations to do anything. “Even after Iran's 20-year-long clandestine program started to be revealed the IAEA inspectors have had a hard time getting United Nations authority to confront the Islamic Republic.”

The US can deter Iran
Rubin, 2008, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
[Michael Rubin, “Can a Nuclear Iran Be Contained or Deterred?” American Enterprise Institute, November 2008, http://www.aei.org/outlook/28896]

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said that if the Iranian nuclear program continues apace, the Islamic Republic can become a nuclear weapons-capable state.[4] While Bush remains enigmatic on how far he will go to prevent Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons if diplomacy and economic sanctions fail, top administration officials hint that the Pentagon is not prepared to use military force, even as a last resort.[5] Though strategic bombing of Iranian nuclear targets is off the table in the waning weeks of the Bush presidency, top U.S. military officials like General John Abizaid, former commander of Central Command, and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argue that the United States can contain or deter a nuclear Iran. On July 21, 2008, for example, Abizaid explained, "I don't believe Iran is a suicide state. . . . Deterrence will work with Iran."[6] Whether deterrence and containment against a nuclear Iran deserve the faith Abizaid and Mullen hold in them, the options are unclear.

Use of executive order is key to maintaining presidential powers
Mayer 01
Kenneth R., Professor of political science at University of Wisconsin-Madison, With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, Princeton University Press, p.28-29, 2001
This theoretical perspective offered by the new institutional economics literature provides a way of making sense of the wide range of executive orders issued over the years, and is the centerpiece of my approach. The common theme I find in significant executive orders is control: executive orders are an instrument of executive power that presidents have used to control policy, establish and maintain institutions, shape agendas, manage constituent relationships, and keep control of their political fate generally. 128 Within the boundaries set by statute or the Constitution, presidents have consistently used their executive power—often manifested in executive orders—to shape the institutional and political context in which they sit. There are, to be sure, limits on what presidents can do relying solely on executive orders and executive power, and presidents who push too far will find that Congress and the courts will push back. Yet the president retains significant legal, institutional, and political advantages that make executive authority a more powerful tool than scholars have thus far recognized. This emphasis on control allows for a longer-term view than that generally taken by informal approaches to presidential leadership. I conclude that presidents have used executive orders to alter the institutional and political contexts in which they operate. The effects of any one effort in this regard may not be immediately apparent, and in many cases presidents succeed only after following up on what their predecessors have done. In this respect I view presidential leadership as both strategic and dynamic, a perspective that brings into sharper relief the utility of executive power to the presidency. I also differ with Neustadt on this score, as he looks at how presidents can be tactically effective within a particular structure context over which they have no control.

Now to do some calc on the wall of text I just posted
Claim: Iran Bad. Need US action(executive order)
Warrant: Iran causes nuclear prolif, lost of heg(Internal link: We withdraw) , insecurity, endangers allies, and causes eventual escalation
Impact: Nuclear war. No XO is equivalent to lost of presidential powers and presidential thick power, results in collapse of US checks and balances. Reduction in US leadership reduces internation heg. more nuclear war. Etc. Etc. Did I mention nuclear war?

That's the only reason he's president, cause if someone white was put into office people would've pulled the race card. Obama said before he was president that G. W. Bush was the worst of the worst for raising the dept seal. And now he's doing it like there's no tomorrow, hypocritical jackass. Btw I'm not racist I don't care what race any president is as long as they do their fucking job right.

So all Obama had to do to become president was run? Oh boy.

Yep, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.