This Proof Can Impeach Obama, Fire 2 NSA Officials, And Possibly Even Clear Snowden

The media should be covering Obama's FDA Scandal....atleast one of them:

The Patent for Oxycontin owned by Purdue Pharma was going to expire, allowing generics of the drug to be made.

Obama ordered the FDA to order Purdue Pharma to "reformulate Oxycontin" for "public safety"....and they released a new Formula in the 4th Quarter of 2010. No Clinical Trials to prove the "New Formula" was safe....notta....

Why did Obama order Purdue Pharma to "reformulate Oxycontin"?.......the patent was going to run out.

Purdue Pharma is sucking MASSIVE amounts from Medicare and Insurance companies for this "Premium" drug....Obama helped them...rob the Federal Treasury.


If that Chicago politics isn't grounds for Impeachment...don't know what IS!

Well I do....there's a MURDER charge involved.

New York City ordered its doctors to cease prescribing pain medications to cancer patients with cancer eating them alive and others with severe injuries-diseases....New York City couldn't afford the $600 a bottle per patient per month price tag.

Now even OBAMA's own people...the head of Veterans Affairs ordered his Department to cease prescribing pain medications to cancer patients and those with other dire issues in severe pain. They can't afford it either.

So alllll those people how can't get medicine for pain...and are dropping DEAD quick from organ failure due to the stress of their dire illnesses....

Obama's got blood on his hands and still isn't being impeached.

He own's Afghanistan now and has a cheap supply of opiates from there.....no no no.....they are for EXPORTS to make money....can't be using it to save American lives and keep them going.

He's a straight up 187 killa'

Originally posted by HauntWok

 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.”

I think Obama and his administration misunderstood what it means to"Execute the the Office of President of the United States".

Someone should tell them that executing the Office of the POTUS means to fulfill the duties of office to the highest moral and ethical standards possible, while remaining well within the framework of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If they're allowed to remain on the current path much longer, the Presidential Office will be dead and their task of executing the Presidential Office will be complete!

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by beezzer

 

I'm not providing any excuse, it's just the facts. Politicians lie. I was under no delusion when I voted for Obama. I am still under no delusion about him. He is a politician, he lies for a living. I don't believe half of what any of them say.

This thread is completely childish, and shows exactly the mentality of the right. They can't make their case using better legislation, or better leadership, so they go after democrats and try and make them look worse.

Obama hasn't committed a high crime or misdemeanor, (at least not in this case) so there is no reason to start impeachment proceedings.

Face it guys, he's gonna be in office till January 20, 2017 And then we are going to get the next liar in office. Your petty attempts at trying to remove him from office based on non existent "evidence" or guilt by association just aren't going to work.

edit on 15-6-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)

He has to break the law for us to consider impeachment? Is that a law? Ha. Let's try to apply a little logic here. If the president decided to sleep all day and play video games and do absolutely nothing else, you're saying we can't bring up impeachment because he isn't breaking any laws? What? I'd like to duct tape the both of you together and ship you out of this country to any random location. This of course is only my personal opinion

reply to post by Rocker2013


I while back I saw a show, it was hosted by Lisa Ling.

She made a trip to South Korea/North Korea for this particular episode. It showcased the 2 country's tension for each other and gave a first hand look inside the offices located on the SK/NK border.

It was intense, no doubt, and hard to understand how people can live amid this sort of stress and constant worry.

Ling managed to gain acces to North Korea, where she interviewed a couple families. At some point in the show, or afterward, there was a comment that some of the NK citizens may have been coached in how to respond to Ling's questions. In-fact, it was/is thought that the North Korean responses were made out of fear. They were being recorded and worried that the government may see the documentary and punish them.

There was one specific segment of the show that stayed with me, where Ling interviewed a family of North Koreans. This family was said to be a very average and typical NK family.

They had pictures of Kim Jong-Il throughout their home, which bordered on appearing as a shrine where they could worship Jong-Il (il). An older lady in the family became upset by something and became very defensive and emotional. Looking at a picture, she offered a prayer and then began to cry, while her family seemed to feel the same.

It's been a while since I've seen the episode, so I may be off with a couple details. However, the main point is that the North Korean citizens seemed to worship their ruler to an extreme and it was obvious that there was nothing he could ever do that they would not support. If he began to mass murder the NK citizens, they would accept it and even support it.

Everytime I see someone blindly supporting Obama with extreme conviction and faith, I think of the lady sobbing as she worshiped Kim Jong-Il.

It is very similar, as nothing Obama has done is enough to lose their support. Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of his rabid and blind supporters.

Those people who are still supporting Obama, as the scandals continue to pile up, really need to sit down and ask themselves what is it about Obama that has earned their continued support.

What does he offer that is so great it can be used to justify the absolutely atrocious actions of his administration and himself?

Why is Obama seemingly exempt from the standards past presidents have been held to?

Many of us have suspected it for years, but it's now clear for all with eyes to see and ears to hear: The so-called US government (ie. the Cabal) is completely off the leash, and we the people of the United States are currently struggling to find a meaningful way to put these clandestine elements in check.

We now know that the cabal extends all the way up to the president of what has long been considered the most powerful country in the world. This isn't just a national issue, it will likely spill over and affect everyone.

reply to post by esteay812


I wouldn't say that too fast.... I work in many different parts of my city, and am exposed to many many people on a daily basis. Anymore previous Obamanites (a religion I have coined) either bow their head down in shame or flat out curse Obama when I mention the scandals. And my city has a very high African American Populaion. So I say give these folks credit where it is due. They are not blind, or stupid, their messiah has just let them down, and they are very angry. In fact, I have not heard a single fond word of Obama anywhere but here on ATS. This says a lot right there! The times are changing and I am beginning to think we need a new scandal on the polls.

What is refreshing for me to see, is that African Americans are looking beyond the color of the first black president. Bravo! But you know, I am kind of sad for them right now. A lifelong dream is finally realized, and they got Obama instead. This is so unair.

Obama will not be impeached over this.. Taking his entire speech that included the language "nobody is listening to your phone calls" and putting it into context tells an entirely different story. He explained, once again, that the purpose of the classified program is to prevent terrorism and not about domestic spying. The President also laid out how all of congress was briefed on this and the FISA courts support of this program.

This is not a 4th amendment issue anyway. Phone calls, internet searches and likewise, while occurring in the home, in a place of privacy, also make use of technology outside the home, and there the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Nothing in the language of the fourth amendment suggests anything about this type of privacy.

Snowden DID commit treason by breaching security on a classified program and giving individuals who wish to bring harm to America the opportunity to adjust. He was given high level, if not top level, security clearance and he betrayed that trust. This can't happen here.

Originally posted by aceamoeba
Obama will not be impeached over this.. Taking his entire speech that included the language "nobody is listening to your phone calls" and putting it into context tells an entirely different story. He explained, once again, that the purpose of the classified program is to prevent terrorism and not about domestic spying. The President also laid out how all of congress was briefed on this and the FISA courts support of this program.

This is not a 4th amendment issue anyway. Phone calls, internet searches and likewise, while occurring in the home, in a place of privacy, also make use of technology outside the home, and there the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Nothing in the language of the fourth amendment suggests anything about this type of privacy.

Snowden DID commit treason by breaching security on a classified program and giving individuals who wish to bring harm to America the opportunity to adjust. He was given high level, if not top level, security clearance and he betrayed that trust. This can't happen here.

If Congress was fully aware of this, as Obama stated, then why did Alexander perjur himself as he told the "already aware" congress his falsified answers? Explain this one if you can. And also how can we trust that this is being used strictly for anti terrorism reasons since these scandals have shown that governement officials are lying on a regular basis. Even our very own unethical president is lying his socks off. Thus why we need to make certain that the 4th amendment is followed to the "T".

The card you are pulling out on the 4th amendment is very sketchy. Please, oh please do, quote the part of the 4th amendment itself that states this. And not how government officials twist it for their own cause. The supreme court will rule correctly as long as none of Obama's thugs show up there and attempt to "sway" things like they tend to do. Cough cough hint hint....

Well, we the people say that Snowden can do this. And perhaps a national vote would be in order? Or would you be afraid of what you may find out? Perhaps that a certain president is a total failure in the eyes of the American citizens? This information was already out there, and Alexander lied about this info. Even more proof as to why we should not have any top secret courts. Which, by the way, I want to find out which totally idiotic arse started this. I think this could very well be another class action lawsuit.

National security has not been affected by this. The darn terrorists always have used tracphones and encrypted connections. Perhaps since the day of Binneys revelations at the very least?

But an even bigger point? This intelligence is something that they were never entitled to in the first place. Sure putting a vdeo camera into every house would also increase security. But it is also a severe privacy violation. Remove those cameras and yeah you may lose a little security, but it was never something they were entitled to in the first place.

Yet another point? You get too much data and you lose the big picture. And I think there shoud be an investigation into the possibility that PRISM caused harm to national security. Ahhh... Yet another big scandal.

Oh and dont worry, your secrets are not safe. And I am looking forward to every last one. Call me the cat that swallowed the mouse!

I really don't understand all the big commotion about this. This has been happening since 2001 with the Patriot Act. Why are people so surprised. Also every war since WW2 has not passed through congress. America is a big joke. And yes I live here unfortunately, and the hypocrisy is unbearable.

Originally posted by Skjord
I really don't understand all the big commotion about this. This has been happening since 2001 with the Patriot Act. Why are people so surprised.

Because for years it was only us "nutters" who suspected as much. Now that it's out in the open the game has changed. Conspiracy theory became conspiracy fact within the public awareness, and in just a few days. The unraveling has begun.

Originally posted by elouina


If Congress was fully aware of this, as Obama stated, then why did Alexander perjur himself as he told the "already aware" congress his falsified answers? Explain this one if you can. And also how can we trust that this is being used strictly for anti terrorism reasons since these scandals have shown that governement officials are lying on a regular basis. Even our very own unethical president is lying his socks off. Thus why we need to make certain that the 4th amendment is followed to the "T".

Why did Alexander perjur himself? A loaded question, but how would I know what Alexander's motives would have been? Obama stated congress was briefed on this program, have any memebers of congress disputed this?

Originally posted by elouina
The card you are pulling out on the 4th amendment is very sketchy. Please, oh please do, quote the part of the 4th amendment itself that states this. And not how government officials twist it for their own cause. The supreme court will rule correctly as long as none of Obama's thugs show up there and attempt to "sway" things like they tend to do. Cough cough hint hint....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

There's the amendment in question. There language is very clear..houses, papers, effects...this is very limited. There is no reasonable way to explain this as relating to telephone/internet communications that have to travel "outside" of one's property to work properly.

Originally posted by elouina
Well, we the people say that Snowden can do this. And perhaps a national vote would be in order? Or would you be afraid of what you may find out? Perhaps that a certain president is a total failure in the eyes of the American citizens? This information was already out there, and Alexander lied about this info. Even more proof as to why we should not have any top secret courts. Which, by the way, I want to find out which totally idiotic arse started this. I think this could very well be another class action lawsuit.

There's already a class action lawsuit if you must know. I don't expect the plaintiffs to win. As far as this "we the people" you speak of, most Americans not only don't mind any of this, but outright support it. 48% are for this, 44% against it according to the latest TIME magazine poll. It's close I agree, but certainly neither side can claim "we the people". Strangely enough 63% feel this has helped protect us against terror attacks, and 63% are concerned about domestic spying. So like Obama said, this is a good conversation to be having. Obama a failure? didn't he get reelected by a landslide less than a year ago? "We the people" does not equal YOUR personal opinions.

But an even bigger point? This intelligence is something that they were never entitled to in the first place. Sure putting a vdeo camera into every house would also increase security. But it is also a severe privacy violation. Remove those cameras and yeah you may lose a little security, but it was never something they were entitled to in the first place.

The 4th amendment actually does protect us from the gov't installing cameras in out homes. That is the difference. Understanding the 4th amendment will go a long way here in knowing exactly what rights you have.

reply to post by travisirius


No, they are not the same but sometimes they sure act like it

www.theblaze.com...

Well the thing is EVERYONE is under survelliance of some sort. Not just in USA but in all countries. And it is not just Governments doing it. If you have a store card, loyalty card and so on then private companies will know all about you. And of course this will be fed back to Government as well via a court order.

So really we are all screwed. This has been going on for decades. We do NOT live in a free society. That was lost after the start of WW2 I would say.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

great article so thanks are in order.

“There’s kind of a view that maybe they’ve gone away – they haven’t,” Bush said, referring to terrorists. “And now, techniques used to prevent attacks have been disclosed. I don’t know if you remember after 9/11, Congress had hearings, right? And you know what the hearings were about? We didn’t connect the dots. Well, we didn’t have the tools there to connect the dots.” “One of the killers makes a phone call from San Diego to somewhere, how come you didn’t know? We didn’t have the tools. We’ve got the tools. Now the people in Congress are saying, ‘Why are you connecting the dots?’ It’s a tough assignment for the president. It is.”

-George W Bush
Quoted for truth.

reply to post by elouina

With regards to the secret courts:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 aka FISA was passed during the administration of President Jimmy Carter after being introduced into Congress by Senator Ted Kennedy.
It was further amended as recently as 2008, following its massive expansion via the horribly misnamed USA Patriot Act in 2001.

…and I wholeheartedly agree with you:
We do not need, and should not have any secret kangaroo courts in this country.

The very idea even – of secret courts making confidential interpretations of classified laws is an abomination to those who seek to preserve our foundation as a nation of transparent laws governed by and for free men and women.

this ideal is not worth sacrificing just because stupid people can be easily fear-mongered into thinking that sociopathic politicians and career bureaucrats are anointing themselves the omnipotent power of kings merely to save 0...30 people per year from perishing in attacks by terrorists.

Our beloved "peace officers" accidently murder more innocent people than that per year...
If you care about lives then lobby Congress to pass a law forcing police to use rubber bullets.
It'll save more people than the stupid secret courts rubber-stamping blanket-warrants which allow the NSA to waste our money hiring analysts to data-mine the vast SMS social networks of millions of scary iPhone5-wielding teenage girls.
What a f***ing joke.

@Edward Snowden on the fair chance that you find yourself reading this, and are ‘legit’ (meaning that this isn't some double/triple-agent spy-craft bulls**t), then thank-you, sir. You did a rare, brave thing.

And if you should ever find yourself in my neighborhood, then know that there are many of us that got your back—

~E.C.

reply to post by circlemaker





One more thing. You talk like the Patriot Act was some sort of conspiracy. Please tell me if I'm getting your post wrong but that's what it sounds like. The patriot act entailed that phone and emails can be monitored.

So because of some whistle blower now everyone's jumping on board? This doesn't make any sense. This is all pre planed. The media is only jumping on this because they're being told to. Just like the black lash card I showed. All these Obama scandals are planned. They want a Revolution, Revolutions since the French Revolution have been all been pre planned.

This all really sucks because it starting to look like there's going to be blood on the streets. And people will die fighting for a cause that wont benefit them at all, but only benefit the ones they're fighting. You can see this coming from a mile away.

Screw it all to hell.

reply to post by aceamoeba

48% are for this, 44% against it according to the latest TIME magazine poll.

Pardon me for shouting, but... I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THIS NUMBER!!!

I do not doubt that Time Magazine published it, but I challenge anyone and everyone to simply go out and ask 10/20/30/40 passerby whether they approve of the NSA actions...If you get more than 4 out of 10, lemme know...I received twenty responses and received 4 approvals out of 20...16 disapprovals...

reply to post by aceamoeba

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

There's the amendment in question. There language is very clear..houses, papers, effects...this is very limited. There is no reasonable way to explain this as relating to telephone/internet communications that have to travel "outside" of one's property to work properly.

Oh boy, you done pissed me off.... You can't see how you contradicted yourself? Let's do what you are trying to do and tear this apart...

§ 1.03 “Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects”

[A] “Persons”

For Fourth Amendment purposes, “person” includes:
(1) the defendant's body as a whole (as when he is arrested);
(2) the exterior of the defendant's body, including his clothing (as when he is patted down for weapons);
(3) the interior of the defendant's body (as when his blood or urine is tested for drugs or alcohol);
(4) the defendant's oral communications (as when his conversations are subjected to electronic surveillance).

[B] “Houses”

“House” has been broadly construed to include:
(1) structures used as residences, including those used on a temporary basis, such as a hotel room;
(2) buildings attached to the residence, such as a garage;
(3) buildings not physically attached to a residence that nevertheless are used for intimate activities of the home, e.g., a shed;
(4) the curtilage of the home, which is the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home, such as a backyard. However, unoccupied and undeveloped property beyond the curtilage of a home (“open fields”) falls outside of the Fourth Amendment.

Factors relevant to determining whether land falls within the cartilage are:
(1) the proximity of the land to the home;
(2) whether the area is included within enclosures surrounding the house;
(3) the nature of the use to which the area is put; and
(4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the land in question from observation.
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).

Commercial buildings receive limited Fourth Amendment protection on the theory that one has a greater expectation in his home than in commercial structures.

[C] “Papers and Effects”

“Papers” encompass personal items, such as letters and diaries, as well as impersonal business records. “Effects” encompass all other items not constituting “houses” or “papers,” such as clothing, furnishings, automobiles, luggage, etc. The term is less inclusive than “property”; thus, an open field is not an effect.

Notice the part that says "all other items not constituting houses or papers" and the "etc." portion of that. It also goes on to further clarify what a "search" is considered:

§ 1.04 “Search”

[A] Katz v. United States

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), federal officers, acting without a warrant, attached an electronic listening device to the outside of a telephone booth where the defendant engaged in a number of telephone conversations. The controlling legal test at the time for determining whether police conduct violated the Fourth Amendment was known as the “trespass” doctrine. Under the trespass doctrine, the Fourth Amendment did not apply in the absence of a physical intrusion - a trespass - into a “constitutionally protected area,” such as a house.

Noting the advent of modern technology that allowed the government to electronically intercept conversations without physical intrusion into any enclosure, the Court abandoned the trespass doctrine and announced that the appropriate inquiry for Fourth Amendment challenges was whether the defendant had a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Applying this new standard, the Court found that despite the fact that the telephone booth was made of glass and the defendant's physical actions were knowingly exposed to the public, what he sought to protect from the public were his conversations, as evidenced in part by shutting the door to the phone booth. Thus, the government's electronic surveillance of the defendant's conversations without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

When you send an email or have a conversation on a phone or cell phone, you have a reasonable expectation for privacy. Thus, as you can read above, the same would apply to those types of conversations, as well as chatting, video conferencing, etc.

Source

(continued)

reply to post by aceamoeba


(continued)

[B] “False Friends” Doctrine

The Fourth Amendment protects private conversations where no party consents to the surveillance and/or recording but does not protect conversations where one party consents to such activity. Thus, under the doctrine of “false friends,” no search occurs if a police informant or undercover agent masquerading as the defendant's friend, business associate, or colleague in crime, reports to the government the defendant's statements made in the informant's or agent's presence. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971). A person is not deemed to have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality from a person with whom he is conversing.

The doctrine also applies where the “false friend” wears a “wire” to record the conversation with the defendant.

Source

By this legal definition, nobody using the Internet has ever given consent to the Federal Government to listen to our conversations, record them, keep them for safe keeping later, or anything that violates our privacy, which this clearly is. They are not defined as my "friend" anywhere in any law book or document. They have not obtained consent to listen to anything we say in private, where private is defined by The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.A. 552a), which is basically a FEDERAL law that places restrictions on the Government's collection, use, and dissemination of personal information. I would say that they have grossly violated all of the laws I've just outlined.

For you to hide behind the syntactical language of the law shows how blindly you follow what you've been told. Please do not try to brainwash others into believing things that you yourself do not have an understanding of and clearly have not researched.

~Namaste

reply to post by aceamoeba


Well common sense would dictate that you wouldn't need to perjur yourself to hide something if everyone already knew. As for congress supposedly all being in the know? I have been reading all sorts of news about them claiming that they didn't know unless they were on a limited committee. In fact if you want a complete list of those in the know, just hunt down my thread that has the information. I am also aware of a congressman that sought to find out info on this BEFORE the scandal broke and hit brick walls every way he turned. When I get home I can find that for you. It is a very informative read.

Dem. Senator disputes Obama’s claim that Congress was briefed.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Friday disputed a claim President Obama made at a press conference only moments earlier, when the president said that every member of Congress had been briefed on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) domestic phone surveillance program.

Merkley said only select members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the program, and that he was only aware of it because he obtained “special permission” to review the pertinent documents after hearing about it second-hand.

As for the 4th amendement, you discussed houses, papers, and effects. The word "effects" is the key word here. Which means our belongings. Which would be our cell phones, and our computers. We also purchase our internet and phone service, so they are also our effects.

Oh and here we go with the polls again. You can always find a poll to suit your purpose. I can find many that state the exact opposite. In fact I can find some very scarey ones that say that Bush is now more popular than Obama.

About , we the people.... If you read quite a few posts up you will see that I mentioned that I have not heard one positive word about Obama since the Surveillance scandal broke. Not one single person that I talked to about this scandal agrees with him, and in fact, most are very angry. Prior to this those very same people would turn their heads and say they didn't want to hear it when I spoke of the other scandals. Nope... Obama is the man... So yup, that PRISM scandal burned him good.