New poll shows one third of Americans support the impeachment of Obama

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned

New poll shows one third of Americans support the impeachment of Obama


A new CNN/ORC International poll shows one third of Americans believe President Obama should be impeached and removed from office. That figure includes 57% of Republicans, 35% of independents, and 13% of Democrats.

The CNN/ORC poll was conducted between July 18 and July 20. The poll asked telephone respondents: “Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Obama should be impeached and removed from office, or don’t you feel that way?” The results showed:

Should be impeached 33%
Don’t feel that way 65%
No opinion 1%
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
He is engaged in multiple criminal cover-ups and has illegally usurped powers not granted to him in the Constitution.

1. The administration’s efforts to characterize the Benghazi attack as the effect of a peaceful demonstration over a movie that got out of hand were not debunked until weeks after the attack. In the interim, Obama sold us on the notion that he had killed al Qaeda when he slew Osama bin Laden. The attack, on the anniversary of 9/11, was obviously a pre-meditated terrorist assault that killed our ambassador.

If Tony Blair was discredited for “sexing up” a memo about the ability of Saddam Hussein to launch a WMD attack on the United Kingdom, Obama should be held accountable for his overt lie of linking the film to the attack so as imply a cause/effect relationship.



2 The impact of ObamaCare. Now, after the election is over, the IRS informs us that the minimum health insurance premium for a policy that will meet federal specifications is $20,000 for a family of five. Using Obama’s standard definition of a “hardship” as a premium that exceeds 9 percent of a person’s income, that would mean that health insurance that meets Obama’s requirements would be a hardship for any family of five making up to $220,000 a year. The gold-plating of requirements for insurance included in the Affordable Care Act is going to drive health insurance out of the reach of tens of millions of people and will lead to a vast decrease — not an increase — in coverage.

But Obama craftily did not issue these regulations or the IRS specifications until after the election was over. The third cover-up.



Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/281289-obamas-three-cover-ups-#ixzz38fYwS6Ir
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
He is engaged in multiple criminal cover-ups and has illegally usurped powers not granted to him in the Constitution.
1. The administration’s efforts to characterize the Benghazi attack as the effect of a peaceful demonstration over a movie that got out of hand were not debunked until weeks after the attack. In the interim, Obama sold us on the notion that he had killed al Qaeda when he slew Osama bin Laden. The attack, on the anniversary of 9/11, was obviously a pre-meditated terrorist assault that killed our ambassador.

If Tony Blair was discredited for “sexing up” a memo about the ability of Saddam Hussein to launch a WMD attack on the United Kingdom, Obama should be held accountable for his overt lie of linking the film to the attack so as imply a cause/effect relationship.



2 The impact of ObamaCare. Now, after the election is over, the IRS informs us that the minimum health insurance premium for a policy that will meet federal specifications is $20,000 for a family of five. Using Obama’s standard definition of a “hardship” as a premium that exceeds 9 percent of a person’s income, that would mean that health insurance that meets Obama’s requirements would be a hardship for any family of five making up to $220,000 a year. The gold-plating of requirements for insurance included in the Affordable Care Act is going to drive health insurance out of the reach of tens of millions of people and will lead to a vast decrease — not an increase — in coverage.

But Obama craftily did not issue these regulations or the IRS specifications until after the election was over. The third cover-up.

Obama Administration a ‘culture of intimidation and cover-ups’
J. D. Heyes, Natural News, June 3, 3013
source link

If they are going to happen, scandals are most often revealed during a president’s second term, and President Obama’s administration certainly seems to fit that mode.

First there was “Operation Fast and Furious,” in which the administration allowed thousands of military-style semi-automatic rifles to “walk” across the border into the hands of Mexican drug gangs. Since then, several of those guns have turned up at crime scenes, including one in which U.S. border agent Brian Terry was killed.

Then there was the administration’s decision to merely stop enforcing DOMA – the Defense of Marriage Act, a clear violation of the president’s duty to see that the nation’s duly-passed laws are enforced.

Now, along comes a spate of scandals – one involving the IRS’s targeting of conservative, “patriot” groups seeking tax-exempt status; one involving the Department of Justice‘s illegal tapping of nearly two dozen phone lines of Associated Press reporters; and the scandal surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, leading to the death of the first U.S. ambassador in a generation, which was proceeded by a bogus narrative put out by the White House (‘the attack was response to an anti-Muslim video, not a pre-mediated attack by a terrorist organization).

So much scandal, so little time – left

You’ve got to hand it to Obama – he’s managed to squeeze in a near-record among of scandals in a relatively short time (four years). But in sum, they are prime examples of just how little respect this president has for our country’s founding heritage and principles.

In opening remarks before his committee began probing the IRS’s actions, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., essentially declared the nation’s tax system “is rotten at the core” and must be uprooted.

“Trimming a few branches will not solve the problem when the roots of the tree have gone rotten,” Camp said. “Under this administration, the IRS has abused its power to tax and destroyed the faith of the American people” in the income tax system.

During the hearing, Camp made additional observations – all of them spot-on.

“The reality is, this is not a personnel problem. This is a problem of the IRS being too large, too powerful, too intrusive and too abusive of honest, hardworking taxpayers,” he said.

“This appears to be just the latest example of a culture of cover-ups and political intimidation in this administration,” Camp continued. “It seems like the truth is hidden from the American people just long enough to make it through an election.”

In a separate interview with CNBC, Camp said:

“The scale of it and the length of time, this was a pattern. This was a culture of discrimination where it was OK to go after conservative groups. [But] progressive groups seemed to find the process just worked OK for them. That’s what’s troubling.”

Something big has shifted

Syndicated columnist Peggy Noonan describes what is currently going on in Washington “the worst Washington scandal since Watergate”:

The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone. Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed.

Obama has always been opposed – despised, even – by conservatives and most libertarians. But he is even beginning to lose members of his own party because his administration is so arrogantly dismissive of the Constitution and so brazenly dishonest. Even progressives are beginning to understand that they, too, will suffer if the country can’t survive this wave of Obama-induced corruption.
 

TracerBullet

New member
1. The administration’s efforts to characterize the Benghazi attack as the effect of a peaceful demonstration over a movie that got out of hand were not debunked until weeks after the attack. In the interim, Obama sold us on the notion that he had killed al Qaeda when he slew Osama bin Laden. The attack, on the anniversary of 9/11, was obviously a pre-meditated terrorist assault that killed our ambassador.

If Tony Blair was discredited for “sexing up” a memo about the ability of Saddam Hussein to launch a WMD attack on the United Kingdom, Obama should be held accountable for his overt lie of linking the film to the attack so as imply a cause/effect relationship.

"Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the suspect captured by U.S. special forces on Tuesday for his role in the 2012 Benghazi attack, said he was motivated in part by the anti-Islam online video made in America." New York Times June 18, 2014





2 The impact of ObamaCare. Now, after the election is over, the IRS informs us that the minimum health insurance premium for a policy that will meet federal specifications is $20,000 for a family of five. Using Obama’s standard definition of a “hardship” as a premium that exceeds 9 percent of a person’s income, that would mean that health insurance that meets Obama’s requirements would be a hardship for any family of five making up to $220,000 a year. The gold-plating of requirements for insurance included in the Affordable Care Act is going to drive health insurance out of the reach of tens of millions of people and will lead to a vast decrease — not an increase — in coverage.
the problems you outline are the result of the 92 amendments that republicans added to the ACA. Maybe they should be impeached.

But Obama craftily did not issue these regulations or the IRS specifications until after the election was over. The third cover-up.
:confused:
 

TracerBullet

New member
The (fairly) recent prisoner swap comes to mind. Pretty sure he was supposed to ask congress.

you mean like how Saint Reagan got congressional permission to give1,500 missiles to Iran in exchange for prisoners of war? oh wait, he didn't get congressional permission...well that is obviously different
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
you mean like how Saint Reagan got congressional permission to give1,500 missiles to Iran in exchange for prisoners of war? oh wait, he didn't get congressional permission...well that is obviously different

Who said anything about Ronald Reagan? In any case, you're committing a red herring.

Do you deny that the president legally is required to ask congress' permission to make a prisoner swap?

Did Obama do that?

If the answer to the former question is "yes," and the answer to the latter question is "no," then Obama broke the law, and should probably be impeached.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
The (fairly) recent prisoner swap comes to mind. Pretty sure he was supposed to ask congress.
Correct. And more than that, it was an end run around the process releasing prisoners from Gitmo
I'm pretty sure that you have just produced nonsense (in the literal sense of the word).

Are you that naive? Obama wants Gitmo shut down but Congress won't let him. So instead he uses any opportunity to get people out of there. This time he did it and tried to make himself look like a hero at the same time but it backfired.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Are you that naive?

You've misunderstood me. I mean that you literally produced nonsense. What you wrote syntactically/grammatically doesn't work. It doesn't signify anything.

"...it was an end run around the process releasing prisoners from Gitmo..."

These are signs that lead to nowhere. There's letters on the page, but it doesn't say anything.

Obama wants Gitmo shut down but Congress won't let him. So instead he uses any opportunity to get people out of there. This time he did it and tried to make himself look like a hero at the same time but it backfired.

Ok, that makes sense. Is that what you were trying to say earlier?
 

99lamb

New member
The law governing transfers of Guantanamo Bay detainees however, is not mysterious. A 2013 defense bill makes it clear that the administration “shall notify the appropriate committees of Congress” not later “than 30 days before the transfer or release” of a detainee. The administration has acknowledged that they did not inform Congress of the decision within the time period, and the decision to move on the exchange may have been motivated by concerns about Bergdahl’s health.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/was-pow-swap-bowe-bergdahl-legal

There is no will on the part of the Congress or the Senate to impeach.
But Boehner might sue.....:rotfl:
 
Top