It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Media Cover-up Of Obama Impeachment Exposed!

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, there was an impeachment proposal submitted when Reagan was President, another when Old Bush was in office, another for Young Bush. They went nowhere, just as this one will go nowhere. Chances of this impeachment resolution coming to a vote, even by Republicans, is nil.




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
The Constitution also states that Representatives shall not represent more than 30,000 constituents.

Representatives currently represent more than 700,000 constituents a piece.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
serously i gave a link read it on your own a-hole
edit on 11-3-2012 by pcrobotwolf because: (no reason given)


None of what you said happened is at the end of your link.
That is two of us you linked to a fake story that had nothing to do with the birther lies you are spouting here all over ATS.

Cry about giving a link all you like but until you can link to something resembling what you are claiming no one is going to care.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
reply to post by LErickson
 


listen NEW member why don't you take it easy if this place truly denied ignorance you would have never been able to become a member! good day troll


You are an old member.
You keep posting things that are not true in threads that are not even about the topic you are ranting about.
Not every thread is a birther thread but every one you post in becomes one and you do it by posting things that are not true.

My length as a member here should not be a determining factor in whether or not you post honestly.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
So the title should read, Media and Congress ignore one of a thousand bills in congress that has the support of one guy. How dare they!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
thomas.loc.gov...:H.CON.RES.107:


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.


Pissing contest. Obama can piss pretty far...





edit on 11-3-2012 by kawika because: added link



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
This is an odd reason for an impeachment- it sounds like the cart is a little ahead of the horses. Is it possible that this might be a strategic move to block an invasion of Iran?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by Thisbseth
 

i was about to look at the video, but i saw that it came from info wars...i would never disrepect myself by looking at something like that!



No but you did disrespect your self by spelling disrespect incorrectly.

Now you should go and disrepect it somewhere else.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by madhatr137
I love how people are foolishly getting behind this bill as if it is an impeachment bill...it is not.

If anyone here actually bothered to pull their heads out, they would realise that what Rep Jones(R-NC) is attempting to put through is that from the point of passage of the Bill forward that, basically, any military action of any kind, unless it was a response to a direct threat, would have to be approved by Congress; any military action not approved by Congress being an impeachable offense from this point forward.

READ THE BILL people...
Understand how the system works.
No one is filing for the impeachment of the president.

It doesn't have any co-sponsors. It will not pass.

Republicans wouldn't cripple themselves as such with a confrontation with Iran looming, especially not in an election year.


Why do they need a Bill to do that? Doesn't the constitution say war has to go through congress, and doign so without their permission would be treason which is impeachable...The bill doesn't make any sense then if it is all that you are saying it is. The goals the bill is trying to accomplish are already set forth by the constitution no?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


Clearly your reading comprehension is very poor. I'm done arguing & going round & round in circles with you. It's clearly about impeachment if any Prez crosses the line, which I've already posted in response to you once. Learn to read.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


I am not certain this is intended to be used to impeach him for his past offenses. I think it is to prevent him from getting us into more wars. Or it is designed to make him come ask congress for permission. I don't know if they want to prevent wars or just be kept in the loop.

I think it is odd that they have to pass a resolution saying it is illegal to do what is in the Constitution. They should instead just say you violated the Constitution and begin an impeachment.

Hopefully it will go somewhere. I will be writing my representatives.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ILikeStars
The Constitution also states that Representatives shall not represent more than 30,000 constituents.

Representatives currently represent more than 700,000 constituents a piece.



Really? I had no idea. Can you link to that text? I would like to read it. That is interesting.

Not that I am surprised. No one in government follows the constitution anymore. Sad really.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Well let me just say thanks for the info OP. That Penetta would testify he needs authorization from the U.N. or NATO as a legal basis for military action is concerning. He doesn't even ackowledge the need for congressional approval. It sounds like he is trying to justify future military offensive actions as defending the U.S. But when you bomb a sovereign nation, that is known to everyone else as an act of war. War authorization resides with congress with the POTUS acting as commander in chief only. Bypassing congress should not be tolerated. I hope his bill gains traction, it remains to be seen.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
God some of you guys don't get it...

You claim this is insignificant? When Bill Clinton had his member down an interns throat and Congress tried impeaching him, the media was all over it like flies on poo. When Obama blatantly trashes the constitution by taking orders from a foreign entity regarding using the US military instead of Congress, some of you brush it off like ti's nothing. And then, you immediately dismiss the entire thing because Alex Jones covers it.


Seriously, I thought the members on this forum were better then that.

Here's the bill; you can read it yourself so you won't use the "Oh, it's Alex Jones, I won't listen to him" garbage.


Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.


Obama is a traitor

So, to summarize. Bill Clinton having sex in the oval office IS an impeachable offense according to some of you guys, and Obama taking orders from a foreign entity, to use the United States military, is not an impeachable offense.

Yup, we're doomed...


edit on 11-3-2012 by Drew99GT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thisbseth
look at the video and see what you think.

www.liveleak.com...



edit on 10-3-2012 by Thisbseth because: (no reason given)


your supposed to tell us what you think and summarize the video.

appeareny that's too much to ask...



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LonelyGuy
 


Apparently you didn't read the ENTIRE thread because we have gone over this a few times. As I said befor and will say agiain I posted the video NOT knowing what it was really about, to get other opinions as to WHAT it was about. And because of the ATSers that DID research, and provided information I now understand. So instead of being the 3rd person to bash me about not providing information do a little reading first. not trying to be rude but c'mon the whole thread is full of information about the video..



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by David134
I believe to simplify it that congress has finally gotten upset with Obama and woken up. Because he stepped on their powers and questioned their rights to govern for a change instead of just trampling the constitution and screwing the American people. Suxs when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it boys.


What they are really afraid of is that they will be declared useless and lose that pension an medical care.
Dictators don't need 500 +/- people making laws.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bakatono

Originally posted by ILikeStars
The Constitution also states that Representatives shall not represent more than 30,000 constituents.

Representatives currently represent more than 700,000 constituents a piece.



Really? I had no idea. Can you link to that text? I would like to read it. That is interesting.


Yes I can, buddy. Here it is, link included, and quoted from external source. You can read the whole Constitution in the link/source I provided. The part where it says 1 represenative shall not represent more than 30,000 people is boldened and underlined by me for emphasis:

www.archives.gov...


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

(Read more of the Constitution here):
www.archives.gov...



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
So Rothschild owns the U.S military as well as the U.S president. What else is new?



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join