http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/10/first-navy-seal-congressman-in-history-obama-created-environment-where-islamic-terrorism-could-flourish/ (http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/10/first-navy-seal-congressman-in-history-obama-created-environment-where-islamic-terrorism-could-flourish/)
A few years ago, many of us predicted when our Heroic Men & Women returned from the wars, some would enter COngress where they could give voice to their objections of the failed leaderrship of the last six years. It's no secret that Obama is dispised by our troops, but they are professional enough to remain loyal to the office of the Commander-in-Chief while they are on active service.
Rep. Zinke is a former Navy Seal and Mission Commander of Seal Team Six. I expect he would flinch when it comes to doing the work we all need done in Washington! I expect we'll hear much more from him, as well!
Quote from: wally on January 11, 2015, 12:18:21 PM
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/10/first-navy-seal-congressman-in-history-obama-created-environment-where-islamic-terrorism-could-flourish/ (http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/10/first-navy-seal-congressman-in-history-obama-created-environment-where-islamic-terrorism-could-flourish/)
A few years ago, many of us predicted when our Heroic Men & Women returned from the wars, some would enter COngress where they could give voice to their objections of the failed leaderrship of the last six years. It's no secret that Obama is dispised by our troops, but they are professional enough to remain loyal to the office of the Commander-in-Chief while they are on active service.
Rep. Zinke is a former Navy Seal and Mission Commander of Seal Team Six. I expect he would flinch when it comes to doing the work we all need done in Washington! I expect we'll hear much more from him, as well!
Let's hope these people start calling Obama out. There is much proof of incompetence and sheer hate for America that has not been revealed yet.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 11, 2015, 01:11:36 PM
Let's hope these people start calling Obama out. There is much proof of incompetence and sheer hate for America that has not been revealed yet.
There will be a day of reconing....
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/11/video-how-these-marines-react-to-bush-vs-obama-speaks-volumes/ (http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/11/video-how-these-marines-react-to-bush-vs-obama-speaks-volumes/)
While I voted for Zinke, I did so with some reservations that he might be just another establishment republican. Unfortunately the first choice of TEA, Matt Rosendale, was narrowly defeated by Zinke in the primary. OTOH, much of the rhetoric against Zinke that had me in trepidation was rather easily debunked as lies. His voting record in the Montana Legislature is pretty good, with only a few votes I disagreed with on relatively minor issues. I guess my biggest problem with Zinke was how he presented himself. I am fully respectful of his military background, but as we all know, (McCain, Carter, etc.) military experience does not automatically equate to a constitutional minded legislator.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 11, 2015, 01:11:36 PM
Let's hope these people start calling Obama out. There is much proof of incompetence and sheer hate for America that has not been revealed yet.
I am not a fan of Obozo, his politics, or his policies and agenda's..
But sadly, Obozo's obvious hate for American value's and his love of socialism are not a Constitutionally recognized reason for his impeachment and removal from office.
Unless somehow it can be demonstrated that this hate for America rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. Say for example because Obozo hates American values so much, he commits an act of treason so he can give aid or comfort to Isis. Then Congress would have legal authority to impeach and remove Obozo making Biden President instead.
As for his incompetence that too must rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. Personally I don't think he's "incompetent" I think those instances where it's been portrayed as "incompetence" were in fact not incompetence but intentional. In order to attack our Constitutional rights, and further Obozo and his merry band of clowns liberal agenda. But this too is not listed "technically" as a reason for impeachment and or censure and removal from office.
As I said I"m no fan of Obozo, his agenda, or his political policy and belief.
But I am a fan of doing things legally, according to the Constitution.
Just because Obozo is a clown, just because he's now "disliked" like it or not this clown is our President now.
Elections have consequences. If you want this President impeached and removed from office fine. Let your representatives know.
So they then can impeach Obozo for his High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And there are several legally recognized High Crimes and Misdemeanors to impeach Obozo for.
Ranging from trying to implement amnesty for illegals by decree, fiat, "executive order". To Obozo's illegal use of the IRS to harass political opponents.
To Obozo's misconduct as CnC when he refused too, and failed too, protect and defend the Embassy in Benghazi.
Impeachment is out, regardless of the crimes the Bamster has committed. Assuming they manage to vote for impeachment in the House, it will take 67 Senators to convict in the Senate. And you can bet that not only will there be zero votes from democratic senators, there will be less than 54 republican votes.
But congressional members can still call Obama out politically. Assuming they have the stones. I'll be very interested to see just how establishment Zinke is. Will he add his voice to the true conservative movement? Or is he there to empower the republican party at the cost of the People?
I basically agree that it's a waste of time to pursue impeachment, given that the dems will always get in the way, especially Holder / successor who would bottle it up in court somehow, even if everybody voted to impeach.
But part of me does want to see an impeachment for, say, the Bergdahl fiasco ?
There would be no way to shade that away from the details, if it was laid out in an impeachment.
Quote from: zewazir on January 12, 2015, 09:13:49 PM
Impeachment is out, regardless of the crimes the Bamster has committed. Assuming they manage to vote for impeachment in the House, it will take 67 Senators to convict in the Senate. And you can bet that not only will there be zero votes from democratic senators, there will be less than 54 republican votes.
But congressional members can still call Obama out politically. Assuming they have the stones. I'll be very interested to see just how establishment Zinke is. Will he add his voice to the true conservative movement? Or is he there to empower the republican party at the cost of the People?
Why do we keep hearing this crap about the Senate? That is not how impeachment works. Please read this sometime: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
Quote from: daidalos on January 12, 2015, 08:18:34 PM
I am not a fan of Obozo, his politics, or his policies and agenda's..
But sadly, Obozo's obvious hate for American value's and his love of socialism are not a Constitutionally recognized reason for his impeachment and removal from office.
Unless somehow it can be demonstrated that this hate for America rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. Say for example because Obozo hates American values so much, he commits an act of treason so he can give aid or comfort to Isis. Then Congress would have legal authority to impeach and remove Obozo making Biden President instead.
As for his incompetence that too must rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. Personally I don't think he's "incompetent" I think those instances where it's been portrayed as "incompetence" were in fact not incompetence but intentional. In order to attack our Constitutional rights, and further Obozo and his merry band of clowns liberal agenda. But this too is not listed "technically" as a reason for impeachment and or censure and removal from office.
As I said I"m no fan of Obozo, his agenda, or his political policy and belief.
But I am a fan of doing things legally, according to the Constitution.
Just because Obozo is a clown, just because he's now "disliked" like it or not this clown is our President now.
Elections have consequences. If you want this President impeached and removed from office fine. Let your representatives know.
So they then can impeach Obozo for his High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And there are several legally recognized High Crimes and Misdemeanors to impeach Obozo for.
Ranging from trying to implement amnesty for illegals by decree, fiat, "executive order". To Obozo's illegal use of the IRS to harass political opponents.
To Obozo's misconduct as CnC when he refused too, and failed too, protect and defend the Embassy in Benghazi.
I think it has been pretty clearly established that Richard Nixon did not know or authorize the Whitewater breakin, but when he found out about it, he committed high crimes & misdemeanors by his participation in the cover up. Benghazi has the potential for some of the same High Crimes & Misdemeanors that came out of the Whitewater scandal; so doesn't the use of the IRS to chill and supress his political opposition in the last election (don't forget the actions of the NSA and now his overreach with Amnesty). The question with Nixon came to be; what did the President know and when did he know it. Granted, the media were out to get Nixon, while they are protecting and enabling Obama, but why do you suppose they are threatening Gen. Patreus with (possible) prosecution, at this time?
Quote from: daidalos on January 13, 2015, 03:32:34 AM
Why do we keep hearing this crap about the Senate? That is not how impeachment works. Please read this sometime: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
Impeachment is an empty act if the votes to convict and remove from office are not there in the senate. We learned that lesson from Clinton in the 90's.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 13, 2015, 05:23:36 AM
Impeachment is an empty act if the votes to convict and remove from office are not there in the senate. We learned that lesson from Clinton in the 90's.
I don't know ho old you are, but I remember the Watergate Hearings. They went on for two years and right up to the end, Nixon was not touched; untill Alexander Butterfield revealed the unknown Oval Office recordings (tapes). Nixon was going to fight his fight in the Senate, until his own party's Leadership, led by Barry Gorldwater, told him to resign or he would be found guilty (meaning enough Republicans would vote with the Democrats). Many Republicans believed in what Nixon said until they saw he had been lying to them, too. A few Democrats might vome to te same conclusion ...and all we need is a few!
What would be necessary is what was necessary in Watergate; information that the American people and the world would see that exposed the President of the United States, as a criminal, beyond the shadow of any doubt (and the ability of spin Miesters to hide the truth)
Quote from: wally on January 13, 2015, 05:51:13 AM
I don't know ho old you are, but I remember the Watergate Hearings. They went on for two years and right up to the end, Nixon was not touched; untill Alexander Butterfield revealed the unknown Oval Office recordings (tapes). Nixon was going to fight his fight in the Senate, until his own party's Leadership, led by Barry Gorldwater, told him to resign or he would be found guilty (meaning enough Republicans would vote with the Democrats). Many Republicans believed in what Nixon said until they saw he had been lying to them, too. A few Democrats might vome to te same conclusion ...and all we need is a few!
What would be necessary is what was necessary in Watergate; information that the American people and the world would see that exposed the President of the United States, as a criminal, beyond the shadow of any doubt (and the ability of spin Miesters to hide the truth)
I do remember the Watergate hearings. The difference I see today compared to then is democrats will circle the wagon and "stand by their man". Republicans convinced Nixon to resign.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 13, 2015, 06:05:06 AM
I do remember the Watergate hearings. The difference I see today compared to then is democrats will circle the wagon and "stand by their man". Republicans convinced Nixon to resign.
I think the Republican politicians were (are) not all that different from Democrats politicians. In fact, today's 24 hr. media and focus groups and poliing creates pressure on pragmatic professional politicians to flip and flog with public opinion, even more than in the days of Watergate. There are many Democrat Senators who have no love for Obama after the way he's used and abused them..and as much as Obama is consumed by his own ego, many of them are just as narcissistic.
Individual Democrats would not fall on their swords en masse to save this self styled Emperor. We only need a few individuals who feel like screwing him for whatever reason! (I doubt any would do it for Patriotism or Love of Country; but revenge (pay back)...Oh yeah! (especially if they think the Sheeple will take it as "patriotism for the good of the country:. In their minds, this might give them a shot at the Whitehouse, after the Republicans inherit Obama's mess and fail to clean it up!
Quote from: wally on January 13, 2015, 05:51:13 AM
I don't know ho old you are, but I remember the Watergate Hearings. They went on for two years and right up to the end, Nixon was not touched; untill Alexander Butterfield revealed the unknown Oval Office recordings (tapes). Nixon was going to fight his fight in the Senate, until his own party's Leadership, led by Barry Gorldwater, told him to resign or he would be found guilty (meaning enough Republicans would vote with the Democrats). Many Republicans believed in what Nixon said until they saw he had been lying to them, too. A few Democrats might vome to te same conclusion ...and all we need is a few!
What would be necessary is what was necessary in Watergate; information that the American people and the world would see that exposed the President of the United States, as a criminal, beyond the shadow of any doubt (and the ability of spin Miesters to hide the truth)
Look back at these two issues. Clinton's Impeachment hearings, as well as the Watergate investigations..
Both took more time to come to fruition than the Marxist has left in his final term in office.
Way too much time would be consumed, when it could be put to good use undoing the damage the Marxist inflicted upon the nation.
Make his Phone & Pen Racist in the Minds of Americans ? :popcorn:
Quote from: Solar on January 13, 2015, 06:36:34 AM
Look back at these two issues. Clinton's Impeachment hearings, as well as the Watergate investigations..
Both took more time to come to fruition than the Marxist has left in his final term in office.
Way too much time would be consumed, when it could be put to good use undoing the damage the Marxist inflicted upon the nation.
The internet and social media (such as this forum) is the wildcard. It kind of compresses time and brings things to the attention of everyone much faster. It's been said that time wounds all Heals! The new media is both a blessing and a curse; just as the Terrorists and hijacking hackers use it for promoting their evil agenda, a lot of good can come of the instant interconnection of people. The Republican party will benefit much more, from the use of social media, if they come to embrace the everyday,common man who posts on conservative sites and interacts with conservative talk radio. Should this come to fruition, (our) representatives will become less affected by Washington insider 'group think' and more responsive to the Rebublican base. Having said this, we also need to be much more aware of the affect of the 'group think' indoctrination our representatives are subjected to. It's our task to bring them our way, jsut as the Liberals see it as their task to pursude them to see the merits of the shit they are selling as being good for our country! Making 'our' people our enemies, only drive them deeper into the real enemy's camp!
Quote from: wally on January 13, 2015, 06:24:41 AM
I think the Republican politicians were (are) not all that different from Democrats politicians. In fact, today's 24 hr. media and focus groups and poliing creates pressure on pragmatic professional politicians to flip and flog with public opinion, even more than in the days of Watergate. There are many Democrat Senators who have no love for Obama after the way he's used and abused them..and as much as Obama is consumed by his own ego, many of them are just as narcissistic.
Individual Democrats would not fall on their swords en masse to save this self styled Emperor. We only need a few individuals who feel like screwing him for whatever reason! (I doubt any would do it for Patriotism or Love of Country; but revenge (pay back)...Oh yeah! (especially if they think the Sheeple will take it as "patriotism for the good of the country:. In their minds, this might give them a shot at the Whitehouse, after the Republicans inherit Obama's mess and fail to clean it up!
I agree that there are probably plenty of democrats who are unhappy with Obama. After all his policies has caused the party to lose both houses of congress. Therefore, self preservation comes into play. The question is will any of them take any action against him?
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 13, 2015, 09:19:06 AM
I agree that there are probably plenty of democrats who are unhappy with Obama. After all his policies has caused the party to lose both houses of congress. Therefore, self preservation comes into play. The question is will any of them take any action against him?
Much will depend upon the effectiveness of the Committee Hearings/Investigations and the further actions of this renegade POTUS. Nixon was actively planning his defense and Watergate was somewhat in the rearview mirror and getting smaller, as public opinion waned and the matter just seemed to be a political witch hunt. Other, 'little fish' seemed to have done wrong, by nothing landed the break in or the cover up , in the Oval Office...until Alexander Butterfield exposed the existence of the smoking gun (the tapes)....the rest, as they say; is history!
Petreaus may very well hold the smoking gun! This would explain the recent threats of 'possible' prosecution (to be determined by Eric Holder) :popcorn:
Quote from: daidalos on January 13, 2015, 03:32:34 AM
Why do we keep hearing this crap about the Senate? That is not how impeachment works. Please read this sometime: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
I
HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.
Have you?
Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:
QuoteThe House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
The House has sole power to impeach the president. Right? So what? Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.
HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:
QuoteThe Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.
Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.
Quote from: zewazir on January 13, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
I HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.
Have you?
Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:The House has sole power to impeach the president. Right? So what? Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.
HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.
Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.
Oh Ye of little Faith!
Quote from: zewazir on January 13, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
I HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.
Have you?
Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:The House has sole power to impeach the president. Right? So what? Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.
HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.
Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.
Excellent points. If one is going to shoot the king they better kill him.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 13, 2015, 05:23:36 AM
Impeachment is an empty act if the votes to convict and remove from office are not there in the senate. We learned that lesson from Clinton in the 90's.
I disagree.
If a person breaks the law, and it is your job to enforce the law, then if you don't do everything within your power to bring that person to justice, you are complicit in their lawlessness.
If the president has committed "High Crimes" and "Misdemeanors" (and I believe he has) it is not just the Congress's
right to Impeach him, it is their
duty to Impeach him. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution
from all enemies foreign and domestic. True, the Senate might not vote to remove him from office, but it will force those Senators to take a stand, one way or another - for the rule of law, or the rule of the lawless.
The People deserve to know where their Representatives and Senators stand.
Quote from: Gator Monroe on January 13, 2015, 07:08:20 AM
Make his Phone & Pen Racist in the Minds of Americans ? :popcorn:
Quick, somebody re-write Jim Croce's "I Got A Name" into BO "I Got A Pen".
All you armchair Weird Al's...stand up !
Quote from: zewazir on January 13, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
I HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.
Have you?
Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:The House has sole power to impeach the president. Right? So what? Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.
HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.
Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.
Oh I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck, or anything like that. It's just that I am personally sick to death of folks, (like I see on FB for example) all the time saying "Oh no they can't impeach because the Senate wouldn't do anything" as if the House has no powers or authority and cannot do anything under our Constitution. As far as impeachment goes though, once the articles are passed by the House technically he/she has been impeached. If the Senate cannot reach that 2/3 vote to remove, it's my understanding that they have the option to censure him.
Which is what was done in Clinton's case for example.
For me, impeaching Obozo, is not about his removal from office.
For me it's about the historical record.
A hundred years from now, if he's not impeached, or ever prosecuted for violations of our law and our Constitution.
How will the people know, how very close to a dictatorship our Constitutional Representative Republic wound up being?
People such as you or I or many of the other posters here, won't be around to tell them how close we came to a dictatorship anymore.
I think people forget, or simply don't know that we are an experiment. (we being our form of government)
Anyhow I hope you understand why/where I"m coming from now, and know I wasn't being a smart aleck.
Oh and in answer to your question, yep I have read our Constitution as well.
Quote from: zewazir on January 13, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
I HAVE read it; many, many, many times, piece by piece, sometimes spending 3-4 weeks studying a single phrase and how it has affected history.
Have you?
Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:The House has sole power to impeach the president. Right? So what? Clinton was impeached. But nothing came of it because he was not convicted. Impeachment is the high mucky-muck equivalent of being arraigned. Once impeached, he still has to be tried and convicted.
HERE is why people keep mentioning the Senate when talking about impeachment:
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:So, the House impeaches, but for the impeachment to actually remove the president from office, the SENATE must convict with a 2/3 majority vote.
Thus, with the current level of blind party partisan politics of modern congresses, a sitting president would pretty much have to be caught on film from 8 or more sources gnawing on the liver of their most recent murder victim (or similar "can't sweep this one under the rug" blatant high level crime) to be both impeached AND convicted.
Hmm...
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6:
QuoteThe Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Some of the Dem's could have a sick out. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Darth Fife on January 13, 2015, 02:15:27 PM
I disagree.
If a person breaks the law, and it is your job to enforce the law, then if you don't do everything within your power to bring that person to justice, you are complicit in their lawlessness.
If the president has committed "High Crimes" and "Misdemeanors" (and I believe he has) it is not just the Congress's right to Impeach him, it is their duty to Impeach him. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
True, the Senate might not vote to remove him from office, but it will force those Senators to take a stand, one way or another - for the rule of law, or the rule of the lawless.
The People deserve to know where their Representatives and Senators stand.
Don Quixote best summed it up...
This is my Quest, to follow that star; No matter how Hopeless, no matter how far...
Though it may seem an Impossible Dream, would you rather live the Dream of Obammy's Daddy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJlgio-UOng (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJlgio-UOng)
Quote from: Darth Fife on January 13, 2015, 02:15:27 PM
I disagree.
If a person breaks the law, and it is your job to enforce the law, then if you don't do everything within your power to bring that person to justice, you are complicit in their lawlessness.
If the president has committed "High Crimes" and "Misdemeanors" (and I believe he has) it is not just the Congress's right to Impeach him, it is their duty to Impeach him. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
True, the Senate might not vote to remove him from office, but it will force those Senators to take a stand, one way or another - for the rule of law, or the rule of the lawless.
The People deserve to know where their Representatives and Senators stand.
Precisely where I"m at too.