About impeachment.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Scandal, Impeachment , Conviction 1621, of Sir Francis Bacon Keeper of the Great Seal of England. Parliament used an old weapon , one that had lain unused for more than 300 years - the process of impeachment, by which members of the Commons serving as investigators with the Lords as judges could act against officialdom. The charge was bribery. Bacon was investigated and found guilty. His letter confessing such and basicly pleading it was common practice for all judges to take bribes , served to no avail. His defender after his conviction and banishment from ever serving in public office was Basil Montagu. He tried to exonerate Bacon by arguing that all judges in the 17 century took bribes. That was answered by an essay about Bacon, published in 1837 by Thomas McCauley. McCauley wrote, " That these practices were common, we admit. But they were common just as all wickedness to which there is strong temptation always was and always will be common. They were common , just as theft, cheating, perjury, adultery have always been common. They were common , though prohibited by law. They were common not because people did not know what was right, but because people like to do what was wrong. They were common, though condemned by public opinion. They were common, as every crime will be common when the gain to it will be great, and the chance of punishment small. But, though common, they were universally allowed to be altogether unjustifiable; they were in the highest degree odious; and, though many were guilty of them, none had the audacity publicly to avow and defend them. Source : Horizon, Winter 1974, pages 35, 36 and 37. Article by Harvey Marshall Matusow.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The catch phrase of the day then was," Let us have law and order until it suits us to break the law." A philosophy Obama excels at replicating often. Impeachment is not a heavily used action in our history. It is a bit more complicated now than it was in England in 1621 but still the principle remains rock solid. That our Representatives are entrusted with great power to do our bidding and corruption simply can not be allowed to be a common occurrence. Obama has a great many transgressions not all of which rise to the level of impeachment but of that great many more than one does reach that level. And one is all that it takes. Our founders by way of the Constitution saw fit to include high crimes and misdemeanors in that list of transgressions that are impeachable offenses. My question is , does anybody truly believe he is not guilty of even one!!??? --Tyr

[Kathianne]

Scandal, Impeachment , Conviction 1621, of Sir Francis Bacon Keeper of the Great Seal of England. Parliament used an old weapon , one that had lain unused for more than 300 years - the process of impeachment, by which members of the Commons serving as investigators with the Lords as judges could act against officialdom. The charge was bribery. Bacon was investigated and found guilty. His letter confessing such and basicly pleading it was common practice for all judges to take bribes , served to no avail. His defender after his conviction and banishment from ever serving in public office was Basil Montagu. He tried to exonerate Bacon by arguing that all judges in the 17 century took bribes. That was answered by an essay about Bacon, published in 1837 by Thomas McCauley. McCauley wrote, " That these practices were common, we admit. But they were common just as all wickedness to which there is strong temptation always was and always will be common. They were common , just as theft, cheating, perjury, adultery have always been common. They were common , though prohibited by law. They were common not because people did not know what was right, but because people like to do what was wrong. They were common, though condemned by public opinion. They were common, as every crime will be common when the gain to it will be great, and the chance of punishment small. But, though common, they were universally allowed to be altogether unjustifiable; they were in the highest degree odious; and, though many were guilty of them, none had the audacity publicly to avow and defend them. Source : Horizon, Winter 1974, pages 35, 36 and 37. Article by Harvey Marshall Matusow.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The catch phrase of the day then was," Let us have law and order until it suits us to break the law." A philosophy Obama excels at replicating often. Impeachment is not a heavily used action in our history. It is a bit more complicated now than it was in England in 1621 but still the principle remains rock solid. That our Representatives are entrusted with great power to do our bidding and corruption simply can not be allowed to be a common occurrence. Obama has a great many transgressions not all of which rise to the level of impeachment but of that great many more than one does reach that level. And one is all that it takes. Our founders by way of the Constitution saw fit to include high crimes and misdemeanors in that list of transgressions that are impeachable offenses. My question is , does anybody truly believe he is not guilty of even one!!??? --Tyr

What says the House? Have you contacted your reps and what was their replies?

[Gaffer]

The house says they can bring charges. But the senate needs two thirds to convict him and there are not enough moral democrats to do the job. Party over country is their motto.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What says the House? Have you contacted your reps and what was their replies?

I've sent emails but no letters. I doubt they even read anything I send because I do not hold anything back when I lodge my complaints and give my suggestions. Folks are never happy to be told that they are shatting in the water bucket and drinking it with glee. A diplomat I'll never be. -Tyr -------------------------- By the way you didn't answer my question..

[red state]

I'll answer you question, TYR. That SOW in OUR White House is a lying sack of $#!T who needs to be impeached for sleeping on the job and concerning himself more with an election and being on some show or something more than concerning himself with a retired S.E.A.L. who sat on a roof top in Libya and made himself a sitting target (LITERALLY) while keeping a laser lit for OUR Air Force (that never came) to strike a muSLUM mob that knew NOTHING of some video that NOBODY had seen (YET) we were told repeatedly that the video, and not the coordinated effort to celebrate the anniversary for the muSLUM "victory" during 9/11, was the cause of the attack on the Libyan embassy. Heads should roll for many things such as the worse loss, in history, of our S.E.A.L. elite forces and the worse attack/massacre on our military base within American soil/borders that I'm aware of (FORT HOOD) as well as the Fast & Furious LIE. I'm not saying that we can have B.O.'s head for all of this cuz he has been smart enough to have "fall guys" but his head and @$$ is on the line (OR SHOULD BE) for what happened and continues to happen over the Libya "incident". All we've heard from these liars is that it happened LONG, Long, long ago and, according to THEM, it really doesn't matter at this point or "what difference does it make". Yes, heads should roll and if there are those who rather confront others on what they've done or not done and not address the question of whether the piece of $#!T muSLUM in OUR White House should or could be impeached over ONE of the many crooked things he's had his hand on, I'll certainly be that huck-a-berry.

[Kathianne]

The house says they can bring charges. But the senate needs two thirds to convict him and there are not enough moral democrats to do the job. Party over country is their motto.

Gaffer, that does round out the process, but you see the House sending impeachment charges? I don't, and that's the opposition strong house.

[Kathianne]

I've sent emails but no letters. I doubt they even read anything I send because I do not hold anything back when I lodge my complaints and give my suggestions. Folks are never happy to be told that they are shatting in the water bucket and drinking it with glee. A diplomat I'll never be. -Tyr -------------------------- By the way you didn't answer my question..

If it feels good, do it. Oh wait, that is a liberal saying.

Myself, I wish to be taken seriously when possible. More to the point, I wish to throw their election words back in their faces. Youtube is good for that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If it feels good, do it. Oh wait, that is a liberal saying.

Myself, I wish to be taken seriously when possible. More to the point, I wish to throw their election words back in their faces. Youtube is good for that.

If I am not taken seriously then that's ok too. This is America and people will have their own opinions . What I know is that piece of human shit that is deliberately destroying our country is a damn traitor that should be impeached and then tried and sentenced to the max for his crimes. Others may think that nonsense, racism, hatred, pride, arrogance, of foolishness. I think it is a fair judgment of the bastard. As he openly and contemptuously told Congress to go ffkk themselves because he'd just do it anyway(which is treason in my book because he actually did). Maybe it's fair to say well it's up to them to call his bluff but it's our asses on the line. I don't like depending on such damn weasels myself. I see a civil war coming in our future and it will more than likely going to be caused by that worthless traitorous son of a bitch. Excuse my French please . I tend to get fired up when talking about that slime ball bastard and/or his ugly unpatriotic scum of a wife. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

If I am not taken seriously then that's ok too. This is America and people will have their own opinions . What I know is that piece of human shit that is deliberately destroying our country is a damn traitor that should be impeached and then tried and sentenced to the max for his crimes. Others may think that nonsense, racism, hatred, pride, arrogance, of foolishness. I think it is a fair judgment of the bastard. As he openly and contemptuously told Congress to go ffkk themselves because he'd just do it anyway(which is treason in my book because he actually did). Maybe it's fair to say well it's up to them to call his bluff but it's our asses on the line. I don't like depending on such damn weasels myself. I see a civil war coming in our future and it will more than likely going to be caused by that worthless traitorous son of a bitch. Excuse my French please . I tend to get fired up when talking about that slime ball bastard and/or his ugly unpatriotic scum of a wife. -Tyr

Tyr, I'm confused, as you've always stood for and argued for the Constitution. Now you're saying it doesn't matter, you or many of you, should be able to define treason, as you see it. Am I missing something?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, I'm confused, as you've always stood for and argued for the Constitution. Now you're saying it doesn't matter, you or many of you, should be able to define treason, as you see it. Am I missing something?

Calling for a day in court for Obama is not me demanding my judgment of his guilt be automaticly given. I would rely on justice being rendered and the Constitution being upheld. Kat, justice either is or is not rendered in a court trial. I've not once maintained that any kind of vigilante justice ever be exercised against Obama. I have repeated upheld the Rule of Law and the Constitution. If he is not guilty then treason charges would either be dropped or he'd be found so by the Justice system. So actually my faith is in that system rather than not in it. This is not about my hating that bastard. I view it as being about justice. I'd bet my life and that of my family on his being guilty. That is how sure I am. I am not perfect and have never claimed to be but one thing I know and it is this. That bastard is a lying fraud that works desperately against the best interests of this nation that I love! That means he seeks to harm not only me but mine--my family! I don't play about such as that. Not ever.. I am not a gentle man when time comes to not be a gentle man. I do not ever expect any justice to come about him unless we have a civil war and no, I don't want a civil war. I have a huge family and nothing is worse than a civil war, nothing! I call for his impeachment because I truly support and believe very, very deeply in our Constitution!-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Calling for a day in court for Obama is not me demanding my judgment of his guilt be automaticly given. I would rely on justice being rendered and the Constitution being upheld. Kat, justice either is or is not rendered in a court trial. I've not once maintained that any kind of vigilante justice ever be exercised against Obama. I have repeated upheld the Rule of Law and the Constitution. If he is not guilty then treason charges would either be dropped or he'd be found so by the Justice system. So actually my faith is in that system rather than not in it. This is not about my hating that bastard. I view it as being about justice. I'd bet my life and that of my family on his being guilty. That is how sure I am. I am not perfect and have never claimed to be but one thing I know and it is this. That bastard is a lying fraud that works desperately against the best interests of this nation that I love! That means he seeks to harm not only me but mine--my family! I don't play about such as that. Not ever.. I am not a gentle man when time comes to not be a gentle man. I do not ever expect any justice to come about him unless we have a civil war and no, I don't want a civil war. I have a huge family and nothing is worse than a civil war, nothing! I call for his impeachment because I truly support and believe very, very deeply in our Constitution!-Tyr

So you are arguing that you and/or like minded citizens should be able to redefine treason in a different manner tan the founders. Furthermore you are arguing that Obama should stand trial based on these new definitions, which aren't yet codified, but you adhere to. Am I getting this right so far?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So you are arguing that you and/or like minded citizens should be able to redefine treason in a different manner tan the founders. Furthermore you are arguing that Obama should stand trial based on these new definitions, which aren't yet codified, but you adhere to. Am I getting this right so far?

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/...ofimpeachment/ New Articles of Impeachment

<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaig n.com%2Farticlesofimpeachment%2F&layout=button_cou nt&show_faces=false&width=85&action=like&font=verd ana&colorscheme=light&height=21" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border: currentColor; width: 85px; height: 21px; overflow: hidden;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
<iframe name="I0_1377058927194" width="100%" tabindex="0" title="+1" id="I0_1377058927194" src="https://apis.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=o&usegapi=1&size=medium&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.co m&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.com%2F articlesofimpeachment%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_ %2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.t2Q_JGbEyBM.O% 2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DEQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs %3DAItRSTMTcZZqzUGWE3MA8WTKZmW3uEvw6A#_methods=onP lusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_re nderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1377058927194&parent=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.com&pfname=&r pctoken=63616528" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" style="margin: 0px; left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 90px; height: 20px; visibility: visible; position: static;" data-gapiattached="true"></iframe>

<iframe title="Twitter Tweet Button" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1375828408.html#_=1377058927340&count =horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeac hobamacampaign.com%2Farticlesofimpeachment%2F&size =m&text=New%20Articles%20of%20Impeachment&url=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.com%2Farticlesof impeachment%2F" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width: 107px; height: 20px;" allowtransparency="true" data-twttr-rendered="true"></iframe>

inShare54

<iframe width="74" height="18" id="iframe-stmblpn-widget-1" src="http://badge.stumbleupon.com/badge/embed/1/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impeachobamacampaign.com%2Fa rticlesofimpeachment%2F" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px currentColor; overflow: hidden;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>



ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA


RESOLVED, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:


ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN USURPING THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF CONGRESS TO COMENCE WAR UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION.


ARTICLE I


In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has usurped the exclusive power of Congress to initiate war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution by unilaterally commencing war against the Republic of Libya on March 19, 2011, declaring that Congress is powerless to constrain his conduct of the war, and claiming authority in the future to commence war unilaterally to advance whatever he ordains is in the national interest. By so doing and declaring, Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as hereinafter elaborated.


I.


THE IMPEACHMENT POWER


1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “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.”


2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:


Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.


3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.


In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

[Kathianne]

Tyr, before I read through the 'articles' you or some other writer has written and you've posted, I'd like my direct questions answered.

This isn't as frivolous as it my seem. When it becomes common to a segment of our electorate, that something else beyond our framework, our Constitution, is in play we've got a new system of government going on. Problem is, it's beyond infinitesimal regarding support.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, before I read through the 'articles' you or some other writer has written and you've posted, I'd like my direct questions answered.

This isn't as frivolous as it my seem. When it becomes common to a segment of our electorate, that something else beyond our framework, our Constitution, is in play we've got a new system of government going on. Problem is, it's beyond infinitesimal regarding support.

this---

So you are arguing that you and/or like minded citizens should be able to redefine treason in a different manner tan the founders. Furthermore you are arguing that Obama should stand trial based on these new definitions, which aren't yet codified, but you adhere to. Am I getting this right so far?

The answer is no, I am not setting new definitions and not arguing that he be brought forth to be impeached and tried based upon my judgments. I am saying he has so greatly overstepped his authority as President to have engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors at the very least of it. I am not a lawyer and not an expert on treason but I can read and can understand that no man alive could so consistently set forth policies that damage this nation and it be mere mistakes. That Obama's end runs around Congress are not just mistakes, heartfelt responsibility and his trying to do his job faithfully and to the best of his abilities. Instead its all done to further push his agenda. An anti-American agenda . His character matters when it comes to a judgment on intent . His not being impeached so far is because they Senate will balk at it. Therefore the House goes with the why waste time on it. Its not because there are not legal grounds to do so. That's my point. The socalled "phony scandals" all point to the real Obama. And patriotism I know. He hasn't an ounce of patriotism in him. Fact. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

this---

The answer is no, I am not setting new definitions and not arguing that he be brought forth to be impeached and tried based upon my judgments. I am saying he has so greatly overstepped his authority as President to have engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors at the very least of it. I am not a lawyer and not an expert on treason but I can read and can understand that no man alive could so consistently set forth policies that damage this nation and it be mere mistakes. That Obama's end runs around Congress are not just mistakes, heartfelt responsibility and his trying to do his job faithfully and to the best of his abilities. Instead its all done to further push his agenda. An anti-American agenda . His character matters when it comes to a judgment on intent . His not being impeached so far is because they Senate will balk at it. Therefore the House goes with the why waste time on it. Its not because there are not legal grounds to do so. That's my point. The socalled "phony scandals" all point to the real Obama. And patriotism I know. He hasn't an ounce of patriotism in him. Fact. -Tyr

Without the House and Senate there isn't a chance of impeachment. Right now, I don't see it.