"IMPEACH OBAMA 2012" the release of Alex's New Video, Minion Elimination!

[JT Coyoté]

Impeach Obama 2012!

Is Alex's new video, working in conjunction with Sean Stone and designed to begin the tearing down of the new world order capstone, beginning at the minion layer, removing one puppet at a time.  

He will be premiering it at about 12:30 p.m. Central Time during his interview with Sean. Kurt Nimmo is releasing a corroborating fact filled article on infowars.com at the same time... You don't want to miss em.

Let's get the ball rolling against these loveless, soulless tyrants in earnest...

Oldyoti

"Free trade is the serial killer of American
manufacturing and the Trojan Horse of
World Government. It is the primrose path
to the loss of economic independence and
national sovereignty. Free trade is a bright
shining lie." ~Pat Buchanan,
-Where the Right Went Wrong-

[EvadingGrid]

 

[Optimus]

BUMP!

[JT Coyoté]

Thanks for the righteous edit EG... you beat me by seconds... :red faced grin:

JTCoyoté

"Disunion by force is treason."
~Andrew Jackson

[Valerius]

Sounds good.

There's ample legal justification, imo.

[EvadingGrid]

Thanks for the righteous edit EG... you beat me by seconds... :red faced grin:

JTCoyoté

"Disunion by force is treason."
~Andrew Jackson

 

[EvadingGrid]

VIDEO

Impeach Obama 2012!
Join the National Campaign!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b76mBlnm86w


Read Full Article Here
http://www.infowars.com/obama-impeachment-2012/

Obama Impeachment 2012

Kurt Nimmo

Film director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone has thrown his weight behind a resolution introduced in the House last month by North Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Resolution 107 states that should the president use offensive military force without the authorization of Congress that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress the power to declare war. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the power to declare war must reside in the legislative branch of government and the president will only act as the commander-in-chief and direct the war after it is declared by Congress.

"The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature," Madison wrote.

In the video, Stone notes Obama's unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said during questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that the Obama administration does not believe Congress has the exclusive right to declare war and that the Pentagon answers to the United Nations, not the people of the United States.

The Obama administration "does not believe that the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war," Stone notes, and "accordingly the president should be impeached."

Stone also mentions Obama's facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" as an additiojnal reason he should be tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and impeached. Obama's efforts worked in favor of the "consolidation of private banks, many of them in Europe."

"There was no investment of any meaningful type in the physical economy, there was no protection of the American people," Sean explains. "Rather, an illegal commitment made on behalf of private banking interests, to commit the American people to paying a debt that the American people did not accrue."

He rightly notes that Obama's actions "represent the most clear violation of the principal of the general welfare of the people in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States."

In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people and waging illegal and unconstitutional wars, Obama has committed a number of other egregious violations of the Constitution.

Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution's Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while political connected labor unions and preferential others better deals.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank financial "reform" bill created the so-called Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, bureaucratic monstrosities that are now engaged in unchecked and unconstitutional economic action without consulting Congress. The Dodd-Frank bill also further empowers the bankster's preferred cartel, the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years).

"No list of President Obama's constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine. The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term," writes Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

Obama signed into law the NDAA with a provision allowing the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. "He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero.

Finally, Obama may be tried and impeached for signing a large number of executive orders. Article II of the Constitution provides the president with three options when presented with legislation -- do nothing, sign the bill, or veto it in its entirety.

"Obama's use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy -- not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by 'executive fiat.' Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow -- or expand upon," writes Aaron Dykes.

[Geolibertarian]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

H. CON. RES. 107

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

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.

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

According to the above web site, thus far this resolution has only two co-sponsors:

     Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/22/2012
     Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 3/28/2012

Is there anything wrong with this picture?

If so, what?

[Optimus]

Bumpity bump!

http://www.infowars.com/impeach-obama-2012-join-the-national-campaign/

[Geolibertarian]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

[...]

According to the above web site, thus far this resolution has only two co-sponsors:

     Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/22/2012
     Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 3/28/2012

The impeachment resolution now has four co-sponsors:

     Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 4/18/2012
     Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 4/18/2012
     Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/22/2012
     Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 3/28/2012

Am I the only one who's curious as to why Ron Paul still isn't listed as a co-sponsor?

The "too busy" excuse might have sounded reasonable a month ago, but are we supposed to believe that six weeks isn't enough time for an anti-war Congressman to merely sign his name to something?

Is he at least mentioning this resolution to all the huge crowds he's been speaking to, that way they at least know to pressure their respective Congressmen to become co-sponsors?

Before anyone starts hyperventilating, I voted for Dr. Paul last month in the Ohio primary. But since his anti-imperialist views on foreign policy were one of my primary reasons for doing so, I can't help but wonder why he seems so reluctant to promote H. CON. RES. 107.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU4AWBKLibc

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-to-return-for-hearing-on-ending-federal-reserve.html

Ron Paul to return for hearing on ending Federal Reserve

Pete Kasperowicz
The Hill
May 5, 2012

Paul’s hearing on Tuesday is titled: “The Federal Reserve System: Mend it or End It?”

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) will return to Washington next week to chair a hearing on how the Federal Reserve system might be reformed, or even dismantled.

[Continued...]

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

I know Ron Paul is busy and has a million things on his mind, so will someone who has access to Congressman Paul please remind him that the impeachment resolution which his very own senior campaign advisor, Bruce Fein, authored, and which was submitted two months ago, still doesn't list him as a co-sponsor?

[Geolibertarian]

The impeachment resolution now has six co-sponsors:

     Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 4/18/2012
     Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 4/18/2012
     Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/22/2012
     Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 5/10/2012
     Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 3/28/2012
     Rep Ribble, Reid J. [WI-8] - 4/27/2012

          -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HC00107:@@@P

[Geolibertarian]

Earlier today I heard Alex repeatedly give Ron Paul credit for "supporting" the impeachment resolution.

If he indeed supports it, then would someone please explain to me why he still isn't listed as a co-sponsor?

     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HC00107:@@@P

[Constitutionary]

Impeach Obama 2012!

Is Alex's new video, working in conjunction with Sean Stone and designed to begin the tearing down of the new world order capstone, beginning at the minion layer, removing one puppet at a time.  

He will be premiering it at about 12:30 p.m. Central Time during his interview with Sean. Kurt Nimmo is releasing a corroborating fact filled article on infowars.com at the same time... You don't want to miss em.

Let's get the ball rolling against these loveless, soulless tyrants in earnest...

Oldyoti

"Free trade is the serial killer of American
manufacturing and the Trojan Horse of
World Government. It is the primrose path
to the loss of economic independence and
national sovereignty. Free trade is a bright
shining lie." ~Pat Buchanan,
-Where the Right Went Wrong-

How about we realize that Obama is not a US citizen and doesn't have the authority to do squat.

We as Americans should have never Obama take office in the first place.   Now because Obama threatens to yet another un-Constitutional war... NOW we as Americans decide to get tough and impeach him.  What a sorry ass nation we as Americans have become.

[JT Coyoté]

Earlier today I heard Alex repeatedly give Ron Paul credit for "supporting" the impeachment resolution.

If he indeed supports it, then would someone please explain to me why he still isn't listed as a co-sponsor?

     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HC00107:@@@P

Given the position Ron Paul is running for, don't you think that if he cosponsored a bill calling for the impeachment of his eventual opponent now that it may be used as fodder to divert issues. He must defeat Romney first... timing is everything here... Once he is safely in the running against Obama, you can bet it will all be in the mix.

If I know anything about Ron Paul, I know just how he will use the Resolution against Obama... we must get as many Representatives as we can on board as co-sponsors of HCR-107.

Time to start calling that magic 202 House switchboard number

Oldyoti

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish,
therefore, the means of knowledge. Let
us dare to read, think, speak, and write."
~John Adams

[Geolibertarian]

Given the position Ron Paul is running for, don't you think that if he cosponsored a bill calling for the impeachment of his eventual opponent now that it may be used as fodder to divert issues.

Then by your logic, Alex himself provided such fodder earlier today by claiming repeatedly on air that Ron Paul "supports" the impeachment resolution.

Do you realize that this is precisely the sort of "he-has-to-get-elected-first" excuse to which Obama supporters were resorting four years ago whenever the fact that Obama voted to reauthorize Bush's "Patriot" Act and to legalize warrantless wiretapping was brought up?

If Obama's political ambitions were no excuse for his refusal to uphold the U.S. Constitution which, as a U.S. Senator, he had taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend, then why should Ron Paul or any other member of Congress be held to a different standard?

Isn't one standard enough?

[JT Coyoté]

Then by your logic, Alex himself provided such fodder earlier today by claiming repeatedly on air that Ron Paul "supports" the impeachment resolution.

Do you realize that this is precisely the sort of "he-has-to-get-elected-first" excuse to which Obama supporters were resorting four years ago whenever the fact that Obama voted to reauthorize Bush's "Patriot" Act and to legalize warrantless wiretapping was brought up?

If Obama's political ambitions were no excuse for his refusal to uphold the U.S. Constitution which, as a U.S. Senator, he had taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend, then why should Ron Paul or any other member of Congress be held to a different standard?

Isn't one standard enough?

Supporting a piece of legislation publicly as Paul has done on several occasions when asked about Res-107 on the record, is one thing... yet he has no constitutional duty to co-sponsor it at all... and he will not until he feels it's time to do so.

With that said, if you listened very closely to another thing that Alex has been talking about the last few days, there is this thing the administration has been floating... the idea of prosecutions against what they consider "legislative terrorism" against the government. Another executive overreach with Oboma-noids cheering...

Are you needing a vacation man? How is Paul's not sponsoring a bill he openly supports a violation of the Constitution? ... And then, to compare Paul's NON-violation here to the multiple constitutional malignancies of Bush, and the virtually continuous violations of the Constitution by Barry Soetoro... and then implying that some how he has violated THE STANDARD because he has chosen to choose the proper time to legally finallize his intent... well...  Geo, I have known you for a while here but this is a nit-picking, in-fighting producing, non issue... you might consider climbing off of it... now.

JTCoyoté

“I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose
to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to
repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but
to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution...”
~Barry Goldwater

[Geolibertarian]

How is Paul's not sponsoring a bill he openly supports a violation of the Constitution? ...

That's the problem: I've seen no evidence from Ron Paul himself that he in fact "supports" this bill.

His ongoing refusal to co-sponsor it seems to indicate he doesn't support it.

And then, to compare Paul's NON-violation here to the multiple constitutional malignancies of Bush, and the virtually continuous violations of the Constitution by Barry Soetoro... and then implying that some how he has violated THE STANDARD because he has chosen to choose the proper time to legally signal his intent... well...  Geo, I have known you for a while here but this is a nit-picking, in-fighting producing, non issue... you might consider climbing off of it... now.

You're right. I have blasphemed. Ron Paul is God. He can do no wrong. Trying to avert World World III is definitely a "non issue." Forget I said anything.  

[JT Coyoté]

That's the problem: I've seen no evidence from Ron Paul himself that he in fact "supports" this bill.

His ongoing refusal to co-sponsor it seems to indicate he doesn't support it.

You're right. I have blasphemed. Ron Paul is God. He can do no wrong. Trying to avert World World III is definitely a "non issue." Forget I said anything.  

Maybe you should listen to today's show with Rep Jones again... and a reprise of Paul's interviews... maybe the fact that Rep Jones and Ron Paul along with others were the ones who drew up the Resolution...

You are over the top and forgot your arm, man... lack of trust and fear of war is clouding your reasoning and your logic suffers as a result.

Ron Paul must be God then... if all he has to do is sponsor the Impeach Obama Resolution to stop WWIII... :chuckle:

JTCoyoté

"This will be the best security for maintaining
our liberties. A nation of well-informed men, who
have been taught to know and prize the rights
which God has given them, cannot be enslaved."
~Benjamin Franklin