Timeline to Veterans For Peace's Vote to Impeach Obama (2009-2013)

By Philip C. Restino, Jr. - Central Florida Veterans For Peace

The July 22, 2013 broadcast of the radio program "Peace Talk" hosted by Phil Smith of the Southeast Alaska Veterans For Peace Chapter 100 on ktoo Alaska Public Radio in Juneau, AK featured guest Phil Restino of the Central Florida chapter of Veterans For Peace to tell the story behind Veteran For Peace Resolution 2011-7 calling on the U.S. Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the Democrat President Obama for war crimes ... the same war crimes cited, and then some, in Veterans For Peace's prior public call for impeaching the Republican President Bush. Also discussed was the current VFP Resolution 2013-10 to be voted on this Saturday August 10th at the Veterans For Peace National Convention in Madison, WI. The archive of the complete 1-hour broadcast can be accessed here.

For those still not aware of the fact, the rank and file membership of Veterans For Peace (VFP) on its 3rd year of trying passed at its 2011 national convention a resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the Democrat President Obama for war crimes.

Impeach or Not to Impeach: That IS the Question

Catherine J. Frompovich

Hopefully, in this article I can speak intelligently to political issues, as my normal bailiwick is consumer health issues, vaccine safety advocacy in particular.

There comes a time when I feel everyone must take a stand for what he or she believes in and in what truly makes substantial difference to their sense of morality, ethics, governance, and community. For me, at least, the saturation point has arrived! I’m up to my eyeballs in overload from the lack of transparency in an administration that originally campaigned on changing the former administration’s very lack of transparency that thrust the USA, the beloved country I was born and raised in, into illegitimate wars, plus an untenable disregard for the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and usurpation of all the basic freedoms Americans cherished for as long as our history remembers. The time has come for me to speak up, and that I will do now while I feel I still can under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1]

Anyone who knows me will agree that I’m a person who tells it like it is; I don’t spit polish dings into perfection, nor do I appreciate human dingbat frailties no matter where they occur, especially in elected officials. In my unflattering opinion, it seems we have an infestation of dingbats within the U.S. Congress and, particularly, in the Obama administration, starting at the very top. Strong words? Yes, but strongly impeachable actions definitively deserve strong words, in my opinion.

Impeach Obama Now Or Forever Hold Up Peace

Anthony Freda Illustration

Philip C. Restino, Jr.
Information Clearing House 

Twenty years ago after U.S. forces had driven the Iraqi military out of Kuwait and back into Iraq, President George H.W. Bush as Commander in Chief ordered the U.S. military to cease-fire on February 28, 1991.  Years later in his 1998 memoir “A World Transformed”, Bush admitted that the reason he chose to order the cease-fire was because he understood that advancing farther into Iraq, a country that had not attacked the U.S., and overthrowing its government could easily be seen as an illegal war of aggression and thus warrant a call from the American people for his removal from office by the constitutional remedy of impeachment.  It was the fear of a call for impeachment by the American people that in effect stopped the President from continuing the war.

Since the Presidency of the Democrat Bill Clinton during the 1990s, which immediately followed the Presidency of the Republican George H.W. Bush, the American people have allowed a practice of the President acting as “unitary executive” unaccountable to the rule of law in ordering the U.S. military into unprovoked, illegal wars of aggression and occupations.  During the Presidency of the Republican George W. Bush, attempts were made to even re-define the office of the Presidency as a “unitary executive” with literally dictatorial powers beyond the rule of law.  Now, because the American people have still not spoken up, the current Presidency of the Democrat Barack Obama has allowed the President of the United States to order young Americans to war without even consulting the American people’s representatives in Congress or having to concoct a lie about the U.S. facing a “justifiable” threat to its national security.

Schooled! High Tech High Students Expose Flaws in Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate, Rescind Invitation for President to Speak at Commencement

UPDATE: Story is said to be fake news.  Not sure why someone would write fiction in such detail and post it as news.   Sorry to waste anyone's time.

Walter Mencken
San Diego Reader

TAKING A LONG WALK OFF A SHORT PIER, POINT LOMA — It wasn’t supposed to go down like this. When San Diego’s High Tech High International was named as one of six candidates nationwide to receive a commencement address from president Barack Obama this year, it was supposed to be a validation of how far the fledgling school had come in its first decade of existence. Chief administrative officer Ben Daley boasted that the selection proved the value of his school’s emphasis on “producing meaningful work for a real audience — making things that have lasting value and presenting them to professionals in the field.”

Now, he may be wishing that his students had kept their latest class project to themselves. In a good-natured effort to sweeten the pot for the president prior to his final decision, High Tech High seniors Ramesh Bhangoo and Christina Rivera decided to subject Obama’s recently-released “long-form” birth certificate to the sort of typographic scrutiny given to the so-called “Killian documents” that ultimately led to the resignation/retirement of CBS reporter Dan Rather.

“Remember how the right-wing wackos went nuts in 2004 over those documents that showed how Bush was basically AWOL from the Texas National Guard in the ’70s?” asks Bhangoo. “That guy at Little Green Footballs posted that gif file showing how a memo supposedly typed 30 years ago matched up to a Microsoft Word doc with proportionally spaced font. Of course, they didn’t actually prove that the documents were forgeries, but the fallout was enough to take down Rather, and the whole mess probably helped Bush win in ’04.”

Congress Delivered Articles of Impeachment

Bruce Fein
Infowars

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.
4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”
5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”
6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”
7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.

Read the full articles of impeachment and listen to Bruce Fein's interview

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama Raises American Hypocrisy To A Higher Level

Dees Illustration

Paul Craig Roberts

Information Clearinghouse

What does the world think? Obama has been using air strikes and drones against civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and probably Somalia. In his March 28 speech, Obama justified his air strikes against Libya on the grounds that the embattled ruler, Gadhafi, was using air strikes to put down a rebellion.

Gadhafi has been a black hat for as long as I can remember. If we believe the adage that “where there is smoke there is fire,” Gadhafi is probably not a nice fellow. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the current US president and the predecessor Bush/Cheney regime have murdered many times more people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Gadhafi has murdered in Libya.

Moreover, Gadhafi is putting down a rebellion against state authority as presently constituted, but Obama and Bush/Cheney initiated wars of aggression based entirely on lies and deception.

Veterans For Peace: Bush’s Shock and Awe Impeachable. So Where Is Their Call to Impeach Obama?

Dees Illustration

Rick Gedeon
Activist Post

First, a connection to the Arizona humanitarian mission to save chickens

Are we living in The Twilight Zone?  It sure appears that way when a Head of State refuses to return a Nobel Peace Prize after it was belatedly realized that he did not deserve it.  And then we have actor Steven Seagal riding alongside militant Sheriff Joe Arpaio on a tank with SWAT teams raiding a house owned by a man named Jesus—accused of cockfighting.  Need more proof of a police state?  The lunacy unfolding in front of our eyes feels even more unreal when it is presented on television absent any mass public outrage.  

History all too often teaches us that the tactics used in foreign policy usually return in the form of those used in domestic policies.  Ergo, the inane use of a tank to stop a cockfight actually becomes akin to the imperial hubris of conducting the bombing of a people in order to help the people.  In the case of Mr. Jesus: “Thousands of dollars in damages were made to the property and 115 birds were euthanized on the spot.”  By which Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies later claimed to have “erred on the side of caution”.  Some error: it was their tank plowing into the house that killed all the chickens.

In such an insane world, we can actually draw several parallels between these disparate events.  All due to wrapping violence in the latest pretense:  Humanitarianism.

Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden (Video)

Youtube


RELATED ARTICLE:
Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls for Draft

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls For Draft

Anthony Freda Illustration

Eric Blair
Activist Post

What balls! What hubris! What hypocrisy! What happened to America?

Once again, America has preemptively attacked a sovereign nation that posed no threat to her without a declaration of war from the people's representatives.  Apparently the U.S. president now gets permission from the U.N. to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars on unprovoked wars and outright murder.  Isn't it still called murder when killing is not done in self-defense?  Okay, just checking to make sure I haven't lost my mind.

Nobel Peace prince Obama launched his liberation of the good people of Libya with his own shock-and-awe bombing campaign appropriately on the eighth anniversary of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.  This tyrannical intervention is so naked, so brazen in its hubris that whatever shred of goodwill America had left is completely gone.  America is officially the most murderous, anti-democratic, terrorist nation the world has ever known.

Is Obama Even Worse Than Bush?

David Swanson

When I advocated the impeachment of George W. Bush, I did so despite, not because of, all the animosity it fueled among impeachment supporters. I didn't want retribution. I wanted to deter the continuation and repetition of Bush's crimes and abuses. Specifically, and by far most importantly -- and I said this thousands of times -- I wanted to deny all future presidents the powers Bush had grabbed. One-time abuses can be catastrophic, but establishing the power to repeat them can multiply the damage many fold, especially when one of the powers claimed is the power to create new powers.

There's a common tendency to confuse politics with reality television shows or to imagine that politicians are, even more than fictional heroes, your own personal friends. This tendency is only compounded by the partisan framework in which we are instructed to imagine half the politicians as purely evil and the other half as essentially good. So, let's be clear. There's very little question that Barack Obama speaks more eloquently than Bush, and that Obama at times (and more so as a candidate than as a president) expresses far kinder and wiser sentiments than Bush. It seems quite likely to me that had Obama been made president in 2000 he would have done far less damage than Bush by 2008. Obama is probably a fun guy to play basketball with, while Bush might be expected to throw elbows, kick opponents, and pull your shorts down. But I'm interested in something more important than the spectacle of personality here. I think Obama would make a wonderful powerless figurehead, and I dearly wish that were what he was. I think Americans clearly need one.

Three rough ways of looking at a president might be as follows. First, in the unimaginable circumstance in which a president encountered a homeless person on the street, would he invite him to live in the White House, or help him find a home, be nice and give him $1, ignore him, shout at him to get a job, kick him in the guts, or help him into a van and take him off to be tortured? I don't care about that way of looking at presidents. Second, do the policies the president pursues lead to massive numbers of people becoming homeless or worse? Third, do the policies the president pursues empower all future presidents to make unfathomable numbers of people suffer horribly? My contention is that Obama has not yet done as much damage as Bush in the second view but has, in a certain sense, done worse in the third view.

Read Full Article

RELATED:
Obama: Torturer-in-Chief


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner