Who is the behind the Impeach Obama stands?

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I went to a Dunkin Donuts in Southfield and saw a group of people standing outside with a poster of Obama with a Hitler moustache that said impeach Obama. They were trying to get people to sign petitions. Who are these people?

[Occurrence]

Probably unemployed mentally ill people with no hobbies or nothing better to do with their time.

[Searay215]

They have setup here in Macomb County as well, saw them in Clinton twp and Mt. Clemens......when I see them I excercise my 1st amendment rights and honk and give them the finger. I've even tried to take their picture and they turn away.....I mean if you stand for something why hide your face?

I agree with Occurrence.....Nut jobs!!!

[oldredfordette]

They're LaRouchies.

[old guy]

People that want Joe Biden to be president?

[lpg]

They were in Lincoln Park last fall. Same poster. Strange looking folks.

[313WX]

Probably the same folks who wants the government to take its hands off their medicare and the same people who want us morans to get a brain.

[firstandten]

They're LaRouchies.

Yep ! sounds like there part of the LaRouche movement. They had that poster of Obama in a Hitler stache since 09.

According to what I read they are more in line with the fringe left-wing, but there politics overall seems jumbled .

[oldredfordette]

No, don’t put them over here. They’re stand-alone crazy.

[Zacha341]

Put them on Woodward and Nine Mile... a grouping of protesters does that corner from time to time........

No, don’t put them over here. They’re stand-alone crazy.

[jerrytimes]

I don't know. I won't vote for Obama, I've never liked Obama and I think that people that do must ignore what he's done. They are just as bad as the people that loved Bush. I will vote for whomever runs against him this election, but I saw these people in St Clair Shores at Salvaggios and the guy said something to me and I told his they were idiots. Who puts a Hitler stache on someone and there is no legal reason to impeach him. Just vote the guy out, but this impeach Obama shit is ridiculous.

[oladub]

I don't know. I won't vote for Obama, I've never liked Obama and I think that people that do must ignore what he's done. They are just as bad as the people that loved Bush. I will vote for whomever runs against him this election, but I saw these people in St Clair Shores at Salvaggios and the guy said something to me and I told his they were idiots. Who puts a Hitler stache on someone and there is no legal reason to impeach him. Just vote the guy out, but this impeach Obama shit is ridiculous.

Putting mustaches on pictures seems juvenile. It was funny in fourth grade. However, I would concur with Dennis Kucinich [[D) that Obama's bombing of Libya by executive order without a declaration of war, the observation of the War Powers Act, without even consulting Congress, and in violation of the NATO Charter was an "impeachable offense".

Presidential Oath of Office: " I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." -Wikipedia paraphrasing Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,”“He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.” -Dennis Kucinich [[D) 3/21/11

The Democratic Senate, of course, will do no such thing. For all the Senate cares, President Obama can bomb, legislate, and spend to his heart's content without any input from Congress because he's their guy. I don't think most Republicans care either. They never did with Bush.

*Ron Paul 2012*

[Gistok]

Putting mustaches on pictures seems juvenile. It was funny in fourth grade. However, I would concur with Dennis Kucinich [[D) that Obama's bombing of Libya by executive order without a declaration of war, the observation of the War Powers Act, without even consulting Congress, and in violation of the NATO Charter was an "impeachable offense".

Presidential Oath of Office: " I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." -Wikipedia paraphrasing Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,”“He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.” -Dennis Kucinich [[D) 3/21/11

The Democratic Senate, of course, will do no such thing. For all the Senate cares, President Obama can bomb, legislate, and spend to his heart's content without any input from Congress because he's their guy. I don't think most Republicans care either. They never did with Bush.

*Ron Paul 2012*

This is like you 20th post on this exact same subject in the last 6 months ...

Maybe the war powers act should be amended to include NATO "transfered" operations to give your argument some sense of importance....

I view our "still in place" erosion of civil liberties after 9/11 as much more important than flyover bombings that are now a footnote in history....

[Whitehouse]

Probably unemployed mentally ill people with no hobbies or nothing better to do with their time.

You mean republicans and Tea Party?

Or maybe Occupy Zug Island.

[rb336]

Putting mustaches on pictures seems juvenile. It was funny in fourth grade. However, I would concur with Dennis Kucinich [[D) that Obama's bombing of Libya by executive order without a declaration of war, the observation of the War Powers Act, without even consulting Congress, and in violation of the NATO Charter was an "impeachable offense".

The war powers act requires the president to notify congress within 48 hours of commencing hostilities, which he did:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...erations-libya

further, there was no declared war, and what constitutes a war is clearly debatable. Only an extremist would decide that any military action is an act of war, in which case the rescue of hostages in Somalia, the interdiction of pirates by the Navy would be "unconstitutional." The congress can, after a certain amount of time, require withdrawal of forces from the country in which they are engaged in hostilities, yet there were, technically, no forces engaged in Libya

There is a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war, and thus falls under the sole aegis of the President.. Just because you think it is unconstitutional doesn't mean that it is, a fact that continues to elude you. There is a reason that the founders ONLY gave congress the right to declare war and didn't grant congress the right to run military operations and didn't require the President to get approval for all military operations.

[oladub]

rb336: The war powers act requires the president to notify congress within 48 hours of commencing hostilities, which he did:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...erations-libya

Our 'constitutional scholar' and peace prize winner's notification sidestepped another War Powers Act requirement which is that "presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue." He didn't. In fact he tried to talk his way away from it. You are wrong. Kucinich is right. Odd that you would put yourself at odds with progressive Democrats.

further, there was no declared war, and what constitutes a war is clearly debatable. Only an extremist would decide that any military action is an act of war, in which case the rescue of hostages in Somalia, the interdiction of pirates by the Navy would be "unconstitutional." The congress can, after a certain amount of time, require withdrawal of forces from the country in which they are engaged in hostilities, yet there were, technically, no forces engaged in Libya

Only you would make the case that bombing a nation's capitol is not an act of war. Next time someone does a 9/11 on us or lobs a missile or 400 missiles into Washington,D.C. I will then have to remind you that such things aren't 'war' because you claim that "no forces engaged".

You will also have to brush up on your knowledge of Letters of Marque. I'm not sure why Clinton involved US forces in Somalia however the US can constitutionally defend Americans and go after pirates. Technically, even Blackwater or the Hells Angels could be hired to go after Bin Laden or pirates without declaring a war.

There is a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war, and thus falls under the sole aegis of the President.. Just because you think it is unconstitutional doesn't mean that it is, a fact that continues to elude you. There is a reason that the founders ONLY gave congress the right to declare war and didn't grant congress the right to run military operations and didn't require the President to get approval for all military operations.

You are right. There is "a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war". Welcome to the Reagan/Ollie North imperialist fan club. Latin Americans wouldn't like you today. The President is Commander in Chief which is sort of like a six star general. Generals are out of line when they start bombing countries without congressional approval. However, as the commander of chief, Obama could bring the troops home from Afghanistan tomorrow without the consent of Congress.

[313WX]

Our 'constitutional scholar' and peace prize winner's notification sidestepped another War Powers Act requirement which is that "presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue." He didn't. In fact he tried to talk his way away from it. You are wrong. Kucinich is right. Odd that you would put yourself at odds with progressive Democrats.

FYI, you missed this part in the War Powers Act...

SEC. 8. [[d) Nothing in this joint resolution-- [[1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties;

The US Congress voted to join the North Atlantic TREATY Organization in 1949. Article 5 of the North Atlantic TREATY states...

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/...exts_17120.htm

If an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.

And furthermore, in Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty...

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

And all of that said, the mission in Libya was NATO-led, thus the president did absolutely nothing unconstitutional. The far right was just grasping at straws to shoot down Obama.

[oladub]

FYI, you missed this part in the War Powers Act...
The US Congress voted to join the North Atlantic TREATY Organization in 1949. Article 5 of the North Atlantic TREATY states...

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/...exts_17120.htm

And furthermore, in Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty...

And all of that said, the mission in Libya was NATO-led, thus the president did absolutely nothing unconstitutional. The far right was just grasping at straws to shoot down Obama.

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 4 only speaks of NATO nations consulting with each other when the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. Article 5 authorizes action but only when a NATO country is attacked by arms.

So which NATO country was attacked? If none was attacked, Kucinich is right about this being an impeachable offense unless you can come up with some other excuse. Tell us which NATO country was attacked to justify Obama Bombing Libya?

This is getting weird. How come Democrats on this board, assuming you are one, sound more like Ollie North and John McCain than Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader?

*Ron Paul 2012*

[rb336]

You are right. There is "a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war". Welcome to the Reagan/Ollie North imperialist fan club. Latin Americans wouldn't like you today. The President is Commander in Chief which is sort of like a six star general. Generals are out of line when they start bombing countries without congressional approval. However, as the commander of chief, Obama could bring the troops home from Afghanistan tomorrow without the consent of Congress.

sorry, but that has NEVER been the reality of the term "Commander in Chief," nor was it what the founders intended. Presidents have been doing far more than that since the early 19th century, and all Supreme Court tests have upheld the right of presidents to do so. A SC test of the war powers act would most likely result in it being declared unconstitutional. add to that the authorization congress gave for the war on terror and known Libyan support for al qaeda, and it becomes a moot point anyway

The US has not issued letters of marque since the early 1800s, following the Paris convention, just another red herring from your absurd idol

[oladub]

sorry, but that has NEVER been the reality of the term "Commander in Chief," nor was it what the founders intended. Presidents have been doing far more than that since the early 19th century, and all Supreme Court tests have upheld the right of presidents to do so. A SC test of the war powers act would most likely result in it being declared unconstitutional. add to that the authorization congress gave for the war on terror and known Libyan support for al qaeda, and it becomes a moot point anyway

The US has not issued letters of marque since the early 1800s, following the Paris convention, just another red herring from your absurd idol

"Article 2, Section. 2 The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.

Your argument is that multiple wrongs make a right. The articles I can find mostly say that the overthrow of Libya has increase Al Qaeda influence in Libya.

Letters of Marques are constitutional whether or not they have been used for a long while. Congress did sent troops into Afghanistan to catch Bin laden. Since then, there has been a lot of mission creep but the original idea was similar to issuing a letter of marque.

Kucinich says that Obama's bombing of Libya is an impeachable offense. Nader says that Obama should be impeached because of Libya. Noam Chomsky said than Obama was worse than Bush. I was wrong to suggest that your position is similar to Ollie North. Even Ollie North disagrees with Obama's Libyan policy.

[rb336]

Where, exactly, do I even imply two wrongs make a right?

Congress didn't send troops, Bush did. by stating such, you have, yet again, displayed a skewed and historically wrong impression of the constitution.

All of those you cite are ideologues, I am not. North being against it pretty much enhances the rightness of the action.

AQ are opportunists. Libya provided refuge for allegedly "reformed" AQ members and contributed to the same activities the Saudis have. The difference between Libya & the house of saud is that the libyans blew up an American jet

[oladub]

rb336: Where, exactly, do I even imply two wrongs make a right?

Your two most recent examples:

" There is a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war, and thus falls under the sole aegis of the President."

"Presidents have been doing far more than that since the early 19th century"

Congress didn't send troops, Bush did. by stating such, you have, yet again, displayed a skewed and historically wrong impression of the constitution.

"The war in Afghanistan was authorized when Congress passed and President Bush signed an authorization of use of military force.

Specifically it provided:
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." -http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/issues/iraq-afghanistan.shtml

Note that Congress didn't authorize nation building.

All of those you cite are ideologues, I am not. North being against it pretty much enhances the rightness of the action.

Kucinich, Nader, Chomsky are ideologues but you aren't ? Even Ollie North has come around somewhat but you are still supporting executive fiat bombings of other nation's capitals from your basement or wherever.

AQ are opportunists. Libya provided refuge for allegedly "reformed" AQ members and contributed to the same activities the Saudis have. The difference between Libya & the house of saud is that the libyans blew up an American jet.

The British burned down Washington, maybe we should bomb London too? Taking down that jet was reprehensible but that was a long time ago. Libya already got bombed for that. How about bombing Libya again 30 years from now for good measure? Since then, Libya even voluntarily ended its nuclear program. Obama's attack on Libya has so far resulted in the massacre and torture of black workers living in Libya and the expansion of Al Queda in Libya. To be sure, these are probably the unintended consequences of our peace prize winning community organizer and constitutional scholar who might be in over his head.

[313WX]

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 4 only speaks of NATO nations consulting with each other when the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. Article 5 authorizes action but only when a NATO country is attacked by arms.

So which NATO country was attacked? If none was attacked, Kucinich is right about this being an impeachable offense unless you can come up with some other excuse. Tell us which NATO country was attacked to justify Obama Bombing Libya?

This is getting weird. How come Democrats on this board, assuming you are one, sound more like Ollie North and John McCain than Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader?

*Ron Paul 2012*

Article One of the North Atlantic Treaty also states...

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty. It is the constitutional document that distributes powers and functions among the various UN organs. It authorizes the Security Council to take action on behalf of the members, and to make decisions and recommendations. The

Bottom line, Obama oeprated udner a treaty, and thus he did nothing unconstitutional.

BTW, I'm not a Democrat or Republican, rather I'm an Independent. I've never voted a straight ticket in my time and I never will. I'll severely criticize somenoe if I feel they're wrong and I'll most certainly go to bat for someone if I feel they're right. Obama did nothing wrong here.

Now, if you want to argue that the foreign policies in place aren't effective enough, then that's fine, and I would agree with you. I didn't SUPPORT the reaction we had to the events in Libya either, it doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional

[rb336]

Your two most recent examples:

" There is a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war, and thus falls under the sole aegis of the President."

"Presidents have been doing far more than that since the early 19th century"

that is not anywhere near "two wrongs make a right"

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Note that Congress didn't authorize nation building.[/quote]

Nation building has NOTHING to do with this conversation. You further proved my point, as Libya is well known for harboring and supporting terrorists activities, ergo this was authorized, albeit 10 years previously. That authorization had NO end date

Kucinich, Nader, Chomsky are ideologues but you aren't ? Even Ollie North has come around somewhat but you are still supporting executive fiat bombings of other nation's capitals from your basement or wherever.

Thinking something is technically legal is not the same as being for something. Being for people trying to expel a dictator doesn't mean supporting the tactics used



The British burned down Washington, maybe we should bomb London too? Taking down that jet was reprehensible but that was a long time ago. Libya already got bombed for that. How about bombing Libya again 30 years from now for good measure? Since then, Libya even voluntarily ended its nuclear program. Obama's attack on Libya has so far resulted in the massacre and torture of black workers living in Libya and the expansion of Al Queda in Libya. To be sure, these are probably the unintended consequences of our peace prize winning community organizer and constitutional scholar who might be in over his head.[/QUOTE]

[oladub]

rb: that is not anywhere near "two wrongs make a right"

It is “a large amount of precedence” that makes it right.
It is because “Presidents have been doing far more than that “ that makes a right. I was understating your response.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

You left off the Tammy Baldwin preface that it was that that statement pertained to the Afghanistan War as a response to 9/11. Second, the word ‘harbored’ is past tense as of when the declaration was passed. That negates the possibility of applying it to another country ten years later having no known relationship with 9/11.

Nation building has NOTHING to do with this conversation. You further proved my point, as Libya is well known for harboring and supporting terrorists activities, ergo this was authorized, albeit 10 years previously. That authorization had NO end date

Ah, the endless war. Nation building is something we are doing in Afghanistan now that was not authorized in the above congressional declaration. I don’t think that Libya was a “well known for harboring and supporting terrorists activities” That is mostly neocon nonsense. Pakistan is probably harboring a good many more Al Queda types than Libya ever did. Saudi money probably supports more Al Queda activities than ever existed in Libya until the recent NATO attacks. The authorization has no end date but the actions must be tied to organizations and persons who were harbored in Afghanistan or other countries back in 2001. Do you have a list of such individuals being harbored in Libya that would justify the bombing ten years later? What peaceful diplomacy did we first deploy before the bombing? I don't remember any.