Impeach Obama

[American Patriot]

Man Claims “Impeach Obama” Sign Painted Over

August 20, 2013 4:05 PM

(Photo Credit: Brent Kovac)


PITTSBURGH (NewsRadio 1020 KDKA) — His message may not be for everyone, but the president of the Mon Valley Republican Committee says his freedom to deliver that message is being trampled on.


Brent Kovac put up a sign outside his Port Vue-based strip mall office reading “Impeach Obama” last week, and said that within 48 hours the sign had been painted over by his landlord.


Kovac said he’s rented the space for nine years and has hung political signs before, but this time his landlord told him that if he didn’t remove it he would be evicted.
Monday night, several days after the sign had been painted over, Kovac painted the same message over again.


He said he’s not sure exactly why his landlord has a problem with the sign, but said she may fear retribution from members of the community who had vandalized his storefront office before.


Kovac said his message is part of the “Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment” campaign, although Pennsylvania was not one of the 14 states officially listed as participating on the group’s website.


But his message, he also claims, is protected by the U.S. Constitution.


“If I would’ve put an ‘I love Obama’ mural up there,” said Kovac, “I would probably have every ACLU lawyer from here to San Francisco in a circle up there holding hands in front of my sign.”


As of Tuesday, Kovac said he had not received any official support from civil rights organizations, nor from Allegheny County Republicans.


Calls to his landlord and the ACLU were not returned.


(Photo Credit: Brent Kovac)

[American Patriot]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...zi-revelations

Monday, 19 August 2013 15:50
Impeach-Obama Calls Grow After Latest Benghazi Revelations
Written by Alex Newman
Tweet

font size decrease font size increase font size
Print
E-mail

Impeach-Obama Calls Grow After Latest Benghazi Revelations

Outrage and demands for answers about the attack on an American diplomatic compound in Libya intensified last week after Joe DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney currently representing a key Benghazi whistleblower, said in a radio interview that around 400 surface-to-air missiles presumably meant for Syrian rebels were stolen by some “very ugly people.” As fears grew that the advanced weapons could be used by terrorists to bring down airliners, calls for impeaching Obama over a wide range of Benghazigate-related crimes escalated, too.

Even before the latest news, numerous major controversies were swirling around the administration over the deadly attacks — the brazen lies that followed the assault, the conditions that allowed the killings to happen in the first place, the alleged unlawful transfer of U.S. weapons to terrorist groups in Syria, and more. In terms of trafficking weapons to Syrian “rebels,” even the establishment press has finally come to the conclusion that the U.S. government was indeed running guns from Benghazi. The New American has been reporting those allegations since shortly after the attack.

Now, however, the existing scandals are expanding, even as fresh ones are added to the list. Among the most serious: Explosive public statements made by the lawyer representing key Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson, the deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism who testified about the attack before Congress earlier this year. Speaking to WMAL Mornings on the Mall in Washington, D.C., last Monday, DiGenova, the prominent attorney, offered a series of accusations and claims that made headlines around the world.

"We have learned that one of the reasons the administration is so deeply concerned, we have been told that there were 400 surface-to-air missiles stolen," DiGenova said about the attack, citing intelligence sources that have come forward to share information since DiGenova and his attorney wife started representing Benghazi whistleblowers. "The biggest fear of the intelligence community is that one of these missiles will be used to shoot down an airliner."

According to DiGenova, the information was provided by "former intelligence officials who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community." He added that "it is pretty clear that the biggest concern right now is that 400 missiles, which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten into the hands of some very ugly people. And they are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner."

The administration also shut down more than a dozen U.S. embassies in the Middle East and Africa recently because “they were afraid there was going to be a missile attack on one of the embassies,” DiGenova continued. The reason they have “lied repeatedly about what happened in Benghazi,” he added, is that “they are now responsible for all of the step-children of violence that happen as a result of this.”

In response to questions about whether the weapons were being funneled to Syrian “rebels” and why U.S. authorities were stockpiling thousands of missiles in Libya to begin with, DiGenova said he did not have an answer. The attorney also told the radio interviewer that he did not know if the stolen weapons were in the CIA’s Benghazi “annex” either. “But it is clear that the annex was somehow involved in the process of the distribution of those missiles,” he added.

According to DiGenova’s sources, the military weaponry might now be in the control of al-Qaeda operatives. More than a few al-Qaeda terrorists are helping to lead the rebellion against the Assad regime in Syria, so it was not clear why the terror group, leaders of which the U.S. government supported during the Libyan “revolution” as well, would want to steal weapons that may have been sent to establishment-backed Islamist “rebels” in Syria anyway.

As for why the FBI’s entry to the site in Benghazi was delayed — especially considering the extraordinary circumstances — DiGenova said, “the reason is very simple: because it happened before an election, the 2012 election.” In another explosive statement made during the interview, the attorney also implied that the administration has deliberately failed to apprehend the culprits. "We do know where the perpetrators of Benghazi are, and we have known since within 48 hours of the assault," he said.

Another major, related scandal emerged during an August 9 press conference on government spying. After being asked about his previous vow to bring the Benghazi-attack perpetrators to justice, the president violated a fundamental legal rule and revealed the existence of a sealed indictment in the case. “We have informed, I think, the public that there’s a sealed indictment,” he told reporters. “It’s sealed for a reason. But we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack, and we’re going to stay on it until we get them.”

Disclosing a sealed indictment represents a clear violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and could result in a contempt-of-court finding, according to analysts. The Justice Department has refused to comment. However, a White House official quoted in media reports claimed that Obama “was simply referencing widely reported information and was not asked about, nor did he comment on any specific indictment.”

For DiGenova and other critics, though, that is simply unacceptable. "We are now getting close to a series of statements by the president that put him on the long road to impeachable offenses," DiGenova said in the interview with WMAL last week. “At that news conference, the president of the United States violated a court order of the United States District Court for either the Eastern district of Virginia or the District of Columbia, where this sealed indictment apparently exists.”

“He’s not allowed to say that,” DiGenova continued. “A president can declassify a document, but he cannot unseal an indictment, only a federal court can do that. Whoever is the chief judge of either one of those districts should issue a show-cause order for the United States Attorney in that district as to why the United States Attorney or the president should not be held in contempt. That was unbelievable — this is from our professor president, the so-called constitutional scholar. There’s just no doubt about it, what he did was illegal.”

DiGenova went on to blast the “stupid” establishment media for failing to notice or discuss the potentially incriminating or even impeachable blunder. “This is a very serious matter,” he said about the entire situation, contradicting the president’s widely ridiculed claims that the myriad controversies plaguing his administration are merely “phony scandals.” “And when you compound it with the flippancy of the president of the United States — who talks about a sealed indictment to cover his fanny, to make it look like he’s doing something when in fact he has done nothing — we have reached a level of cynicism, personally, on the part of this president, that is staggering. He’s not a president anymore; he’s a talk-show host.”

DiGenova and the Benghazi whistleblowers are hardly the only critics of the administration seeking serious action. Late last month, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) introduced a resolution aimed at forcing a House vote on creating a special committee to investigate Benghazigate and the attacks. Support for the measure is continuing to build.

“It has been nearly a year since terrorists killed an American ambassador and three other U.S. citizens in a coordinated attack,” the congressman said. “Yet, not one survivor has been allowed to testify to Congress and repeated requests for information have been blocked. Two different hearings have been canceled after witnesses were confronted and some actually intimidated. If four members of Obama’s personal staff had been killed, there would rightfully have been a full investigation and congressional hearings. But not one perpetrator has been brought to justice and requests for witnesses and information have been blocked.”

Among other groups supporting Stockman’s efforts is the Washington, D.C.-based Special Operations Speaks (SOS), an organization seeking serious answers about what happened in Benghazi. The group is now urging citizens to confront their representatives “paparazzi” style in an effort to force Congress to investigate. “Those activists who are committed to help end the Benghazi cover-up must act now to force every member of Congress to go on record on the Stockman Discharge Petition,” SOS co-founder Col. Dick Brauer said in a statement. “The only path to the truth is through a Watergate-style select committee.”

Others, meanwhile, are calling for impeaching Obama over the Benghazi scandal and other serious abuses. According to a poll released in May, impeachment for Benghazigate alone had the support of more than half of Americans. Now, in the wake of the latest revelations by DiGenova and others, grassroots leaders are turning up the pressure for action and accountability.

Citing the stolen missiles, the lies, and the “CIA-State Department weapons running operation,” conservative activists say it is time for impeachment. “Team Obama simply could not allow the truth of Benghazi to come out just weeks before the election,” noted “Grassfire Nation” chief Steve Elliott, who leads a grassroots network that says it has around a million activists. “So the CIA concocted the story to blame it on ‘terrorism’ but even that was not acceptable to Team Obama. So they pinned the episode on a YouTube video. Benghazi is one of the most blatant examples in modern history of a President lying to the American people for personal political gain.”

Most analysts do not expect to see the Obama administration held accountable for Benghazigate — gun running to Islamic extremists, brazenly lying to the American people, engaging in coverups, and more. However, with pressure on Congress still continuing to grow almost a year after the deadly attacks, a big enough public outcry could certainly force lawmakers to act. If nothing is done, the current administration and future presidents will almost certainly be emboldened to continue engaging in lawless behavior.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

[vector7]

Sen. Coburn: Obama 'Perilously Close' to Impeachment



Thursday, 22 Aug 2013 07:08 PM
By Cathy Burke


President Obama is moving "perilously close" to impeachment, Sen. Tom Coburn told a town hall crowd this week, two reports said Thursday.

The Oklahoma Republican noted he was "a personal friend" of the president during the Muskogee town hall event, but said the administration suffers from incompetence.

Coburn repeatedly called the president's administration "lawless," telling the crowd of 300 at the Muskogee Convention Center there should be a national constitutional convention to counter it – and to cut down an oversized federal government, the Tulsa World reported.

"I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions," he said. "I have a great fear now of not having one."

On the issue of the president’s accountability, Roll Call reported Coburn told the crowd, "What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment."

"That’s not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means," he said. "I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions.
"I believe [an impeachment charge] needs to be evaluated and determined, but thank goodness it doesn’t have to happen in the Senate until they’ve brought charges in the House," Coburn said. "Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time. I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close."

To back his claim of administrative incompetence, Coburn cited the example of Obama’s 15 picks for top Homeland Security vacancies, saying "a general portion of the nominees are absolutely incompetent," Roll Call reported.

Coburn has been a leading voice against trying to shut down the government over funding Obamacare, and said the proposal championed by conservative special interest groups such as Freedomworks and the Heritage Foundation would be "childish" and "intellectually dishonest,” the newspaper reported.

" . . . I quite frankly think he’s in a difficult position he’s put himself in and if it continues, I think we’re going to have another constitutional crisis in terms of the presidency," Coburn said.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cob...#ixzz2codhuJWy

[American Patriot]

Coburn is a stupid fuck. There's nothing "perilously close" at all about this. It's beyond the line and Obama should have been impeached in his FIRST fucking term just over going after guns. And so should that idiotic clown Joe Biden. Both of them should go to prison. Along with Hilary, the head of the NSA, IRS and DOJ.

We're surrounded by criminals in office and none of these fucks in Congress has the BALLS to deal with it.

That makes them criminals for NOT doing anything!

[MinutemanCO]

Agreed.

[BRVoice]

I know that I'm a foreigner but allow me some thoughts about president Barack Obama.

What Obama is doing (supporting Muslim Brotherhood) is a crime against humanity.

Look to what the MB is doing. In Egypt, torching christian orphanages, religious institutions and in Syria, beheading christian monks and destroying monasteries and churches.

I would say that this is a thing that would make Lucifer very proud.

Also, what he did in Benghazi is treason in my eyes.

Obama should not only be impeached but face a tribunal for crimes against mankind.

[American Patriot]

Occasionally it takes someone who doesn't actually live in the states to see what should be evident, even obvious to the rest of us.

But if you were brought up here, learned our history the way I have for instance and understand that Freedom isn't Free you realize that what goes on outside our country (like the deaths of babies at the hands of Muslim extremists for instance) isn't our fault, that the fall of a government that is essentially democratic - or at least peaceful and helpful to our country (Egypt for instance) isn't always the fault of the US Government.

Obama couldn't be tried for crimes against humanity in the case of Syria, or crimes against mankind for his failures in Egypt.

In fact, until the US government starts killing our own people this sort of thing won't even come up in polite conversation.

Obama is guilty of allowing or facilitating the death's of those four in Benghazi, and likely a good number (if not all) of SEAL Team Six - and while we don't have actual evidence in these cases, the Administration, the State Department, CIA and other parts of the US Government are working diligently to hide the facts.

He is guilty of allowing the spying on regular Americans through the NSA and even facilitating said spying.

He is guilty of using the power and long arm of the IRS against Americans who just happened to oppose him in the last election - thereby fixing the elections. If there was a case of voter fraud going on, this is it, it's in our faces and we're being laughed at while he get's his measly $400,000 per year for his term of office. He gets an additional 100,000 per year expense budget (for travel) and $25,000 "entertainment stipend". In two terms, eight years, he walks away with about $4,400,000 - roughly, not counting all the other stuff he gets on the side.

The truth is, BRV that Obama is, in my book, a liar, a cheat, a mishandler, an incompetent President, and he's a puppet, his strings being worked by someone other than himself.

He skirts the very edge of illegality and allows others - in fact orders them to do his real dirty work.

I just don't see him being tried for crimes against humanity any time soon.

Now, if the DHS suddenly starts wasting Americans on the streets of San Francisco California or Washington DC, Denver Colorado, Atlanta Georgia or Dallas Texas because they are gun owners, patriots or Constitutionalists - well, he won't get the chance to be tried in front of a tribunal or any other "legal body" in the world. The America people will remove him from the White House, in force and en mass.

[American Patriot]

Oh, and BRVoice, just so you know... Armageddon is about to begin:

2 Million Bikers: IT’S ON!

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Brittius



Attached are numerous informations regarding assembly of TWO MILLION BIKERS in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2013.


All bikers are organizing through local riding clubs and affiliations.


All VETERANS are starting to organize to attend and support AMERICA, and the Two Million Bikers.


Black Conservatives will be attending to support AMERICA and the Two Million Bikers.


There will be numerous posts online at various sites.


If attending, bring proper identification in the event of need of use.


There will be singing of Kumbaya and sipping lavender tea. There will be discusion of house cats.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwt1DVaYLy4
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/H...f-in-dc-on-911

https://www.facebook.com/2MillionBikersDC?ref=nf
http://www.examiner.com/article/bike...n-muslim-march
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/20...march-to-hell/
http://oldironsides-thesilentmajorit...on-muslim.html
http://www.pacinst.com/armagedd.htm

Remember the bullshit of "A million Muslims"? Well, this is the response. They will be "Marched to Hell" if they think they are going to fuck this country up any further. This is the beginning of the end of the United States... Or it is the end of the beginning. One way or another this shit stops in MY country.

[BRVoice]

Oh, and BRVoice, just so you know... Armageddon is about to begin:

2 Million Bikers: IT’S ON!

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Brittius



Attached are numerous informations regarding assembly of TWO MILLION BIKERS in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2013.


All bikers are organizing through local riding clubs and affiliations.


All VETERANS are starting to organize to attend and support AMERICA, and the Two Million Bikers.


Black Conservatives will be attending to support AMERICA and the Two Million Bikers.


There will be numerous posts online at various sites.


If attending, bring proper identification in the event of need of use.


There will be singing of Kumbaya and sipping lavender tea. There will be discusion of house cats.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwt1DVaYLy4
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/H...f-in-dc-on-911

https://www.facebook.com/2MillionBikersDC?ref=nf
http://www.examiner.com/article/bike...n-muslim-march
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/20...march-to-hell/
http://oldironsides-thesilentmajorit...on-muslim.html
http://www.pacinst.com/armagedd.htm

Remember the bullshit of "A million Muslims"? Well, this is the response. They will be "Marched to Hell" if they think they are going to fuck this country up any further. This is the beginning of the end of the United States... Or it is the end of the beginning. One way or another this shit stops in MY country.

I know it's not much, but you have my full support for this march.

[vector7]

Glenn Beck Has Had Enough: ‘I, Personally, Am Calling To Impeach The President’

By Brian Carey on September 18, 2013 Subscribe to Brian Carey's Feed@brianmcarey



Go big or go home, huh?

Glenn Beck is fed up with this President, and he wants him out of office. In fact, he wants President Obama out of office well before January of 2017, when he is scheduled to leave office.

Just yesterday on his own television network, BlazeTV, Beck personally called for the impeachment of President Obama. This is the first time that he has done that.

“I called today for the very first time in my career,” Beck said, “on this President. I, personally, I have said before, ‘That’s impeachable.’ I, personally, am calling to impeach the President of the United States. This is impeachable.”

And what, exactly, does Beck mean by “this”? What is it that President Obama is doing that rises to the constitutionally defined level of “high crimes” and/or “misdemeanors”?

Beck believes that the President should be impeached because he is willing to arm the Syrian rebels. “He is arming known terrorists,” Beck said, “and people like John McCain should be impeached as well.”

John McCain should be impeached? We didn’t see that one coming.

“If you don’t want your vote back,” Beck continued, “what will it take? If you in Arizona said, ‘I voted for John McCain because I thought John McCain was strong on defense and better than the other guy.’

Whatever the deal is, if them saying, ‘We’re going to arm al-Qaeda’ and yes, we know that some of the arms are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda… if that’s not an impeachable offense for Lindsey Graham, for John McCain, for John Boehner, for the President of the United States, I don’t know what an impeachable offense is.”

Have a look at the video below.

[American Patriot]

It won't happen. Congress hasn't got the BALLS to do it.

[Toad]

We're going on 5+ years now. No one has even gotten close to the ball in motion.

[American Patriot]

Nope, they haven't. I've written to my Reps requesting them to do so... been IGNORED.

[American Patriot]

Black Citizens Group Files ‘Articles of Impeachment’ Against Obama

Posted on November 22, 2013 by jcscuba







by Dr. Richard Swier

The National Black Republican Association (NBRA) based in Sarasota, FL, headed by Chairman Frances Rice, filed Articles of Impeachment against President Barack Obama with the following language:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_UrifEmeo


We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.


On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:


“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” - Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.


THE IMPEACHMENT POWER


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.”


THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT


In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:


ARTICLE 1
He has covered up, delayed, impeded and obstructed the investigation of the Benghazi Battle.


Specific conduct includes: (1) failing to adequately secure the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi; (2) failing to send a response team to rescue embattled US citizens in Benghazi; (3) lying to the American people about why the US Consulate and the CIA annex were attacked in Benghazi; and (3) hiding from the media and congressional investigators the Central Intelligence Agency personnel and other wounded US citizens who were on the ground in Benghazi by scattering them throughout the United States, forcing them to adopt new identities and subjecting them to monthly polygraph tests.


Benghazi Battle elements that are under investigation:

On September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya was targeted in a premeditated, preplanned attack launched without warning by Islamist militants.


See entire article below.


Footage of the attack broadcast in real time showed armed men attacking the consulate with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, truck mounted artillery, diesel canisters, and mortars. It was not an act of savage mob violence, nor a spontaneous protest in response to an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.


In that attack, four American citizens were killed: US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Information Officer Sean Smith; and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Ambassador Stevens is the first U.S. ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979.


ARTICLE 2
He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’


ARTICLE 3
He has authorized and permitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department, to conduct Operation Fast and Furious, wherein guns were sold to Mexican drug trafficking organizations that were used to kill innocent Mexican civilians and two rifles sold to a smuggler in January 2010 ended up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.


ARTICLE 4
He has authorized and permitted confidential income tax returns information from the Internal Revenue Service to be provided to unauthorized individuals, organizations and agencies.


ARTICLE 5
He has caused investigations and audits to be initiated or conducted by the Internal Revenue Service in a discriminatory manner, including harassment and intimidation of conservative, evangelical and Tea Party groups applying for non-profit status between 2010 and 2012.


Elements of this illegal conduct include the facts that: (1) the head of the Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt organization division, Lois Lerner, admitted during a telephonic press event that illegal targeting occurred, then invoked her Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions before Congress about the targeting out of fear of self-incrimination; (2) two other career Internal Revenue Service employees stated that they acted at the behest of superiors in Washington — Carter Hull, a retired Internal Revenue Service Attorney and Elizabeth Hofacre, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office which oversaw tax-exempt applications; and (3) Carter Hull stated that he was directed to forward the targeted applications to, among others, one of only two political appointees in the Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel William Wilkins.


ARTICLE 6
He has (1) authorized and permitted the National Security Agency to conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million average Americans; (2) given access to National Security Agency surveillance data to other intelligence units within the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the law; and (3) conducted the surveillance of average Americans unconstrained by Congress, the United Supreme Court or the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has, to this date, functioned as a rubber stamp, having approved every request made of it in 2012 and rejecting only two of the 8,591 requests submitted between 2008 and 2012.


ARTICLE 7
He has authorized and permitted the Department of Justice to wiretap and secretly obtain two months of telephone and e-mail records of Fox News Reporter James Rosen and over one hundred Associated Press journalists.


ARTICLE 8
He has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits.


ARTICLE 9
He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.


ARTICLE 10
He has intimidated whistleblowers and brought twice as many prosecutions against whistleblowers as all prior presidents combined. Egregiously, while refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, he prosecuted former Central Intelligence Agency employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program.


Wherefore Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

[vector7]

DNC Fundraises Off Possibility of Obama Being Impeached…

When I hear the words Obama and impeach in the same sentence I get a Chris Matthews-like leg thrill.

Via DNC email:













ZIP | December 28, 2013 10:10 pm

http://weaselzippers.us/?p=165869#disqus_thread

[American Patriot]

Is tide turning? Liberal writer supports Obama impeachment

Written by Allen West on January 23, 2014







In recent fundraising efforts, Democrats have invoked the “I” word – the threat of impeachment — to try and rally liberal progressives as we approach the key 2014 mid-term elections.

Democrats are working hard to portray this as a full speed effort of conservatives. But it’s not just those center-right who are concerned with President Obama’s executive overreach.

In an interview with World Net Daily, famed Village Voice journalist Nat Hentoff called Obama “the most dangerous and destructive president ever” and “the worst state…the country has ever been in.”

Hentoff is particularly incensed by Obama’s egregious use of executive orders, especially considering his most recent comments at a cabinet meeting regarding having a pen and a phone. “He has no right to do these executive orders,” Hentoff insists.

Why does Obama get away with it? Hentoff says there is no outrage in Congress, no coverage by the media and no knowledge by the public.

“He’s in a position now where he figures he’s going to do whatever he wants to do.” In fact, Hentoff said, Obama doesn’t even pretend to care about the separation of powers between the executive branch and Congress anymore, because “He’s the boss and hardly anybody cares enough” to stop him.

Separately, in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, two constitutional law professors told Congress the president exceeded his authority when he unilaterally extended the deadline for enforcement of the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis and the question Americans have to ask is whether or not their elected representatives will take any action.

The most well-known examples of Obama changing or issuing laws with the stroke of a pen by issuing executive orders include:

• > Delaying the employer mandate in Obamacare
• > Changing the types of plans available under Obamacare
• > Ensuring abortions would be covered under Obamacare
• > Enacting key provisions of the failed Dream Act to halt deportations of illegal immigrants
• > Enacting stricter gun-control measures
• > Sealing presidential records
• > Creating an economic council
• > Creating a domestic policy council
• > Changing pay grades

“Never before in our history had a president done these things,” Hentoff mused. He is baffled that Obama should escape such scrutiny when former President Bill Clinton faced impeachment just for being “a lousy liar.”

As I mentioned earlier this week, it will be interesting to hear what the focus of President Obama’s State of the Union address will be.
I no longer believe this is a matter of incompetence. This presidency is intentional and purposeful in truly fundamentally transforming America. And it’s terrifying.

Tags: Impeachment, Obama

Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/01/tide-t...rXtSuHB3oDO.99

[American Patriot]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/im...tter-congress/

Impeachment is Appropriate: An Open Letter to Congress
Michael Peroutka February 5, 2014
19 Comments

Share400 Tweet46 Share532 33 Email7

Leading up to the January 28th State of the Union Speech, Barack Obama and his spokesmen made statements to the effect that he plans to use his pen to sign executive orders to enact law on his own authority. He says he will do this because, in his view, Congress has not, or will not, pass certain legislation that he desires.

Based on this bald assertion of prerogative by Obama, articles of impeachment should be filed against him immediately. And I am calling on my Congressman, Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, to do just that. I urge you to do the same with regard to your own representative in Congress. In fact, you might send this short video to your Congressman along with your request that he impeach Barack Obama.

Let's talk about the legal reasoning for this?

The very first sentence of the Constitution (after the preamble) begins with the word "all."

Before we go any further, let's just define this term. Can we agree that the word "all" means, well…"all"?

Now, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and here's what that first sentence says in its entirety:

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

With this sentence in mind let me ask a question.

If all law making authority is vested in Congress, then how much is left over for the executive branch?

Asked another way: How can a president make law when only the legislative branch has that power?

The fact is, he cannot.

And when an elected official threatens to act outside his constitutional authority, he is inviting and deserving of impeachment and removal from office.

So I am asking Representative Harris, along with all other members of Congress, who, of course, have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, to impeach Barack Obama.

Why?

Barack Obama has identified himself as an enemy of the Constitution by declaring his intention to violate it.

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his "Institute on the Constitution" and receive your free gift.

To forward this article and video to your Congressman, click here and add the URL and your comments to an email for your Representative.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/im...5tmkVsfEbuJ.99

[American Patriot]

Finally.....

IS THE 'IMPEACH OBAMA' CAMPAIGN STARTING TO GO MAINSTREAM ?
05-10-2014 9:38 pm - Bob Unruh - World Net Daily



Talk of impeaching Barack Obama has been broached by members of Congress, media, community activists, truckers and others from both left and right over the past several years.

And now Washington Post commentator Paul Waldman says it’s going mainstream.

“Now we have the Benghazi select committee, and a select committee is what you form when there may be crimes and misdemeanors to uncover,” he points out.

“It has no other business to distract it, and it will be led by Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor who excels at channeling conservatives’ outrage,” Waldman wrote. “To be clear, this doesn’t mean that [House Speaker John] Boehner or the party establishment he represents want impeachment, not by any means. They realize what a political disaster it was when they did it in 1998, and they understand that the effects would likely be similar if it happened again.”

But Waldman writes that “there are multiple Republican members of Congress who have at least toyed with the idea, and the committee’s hearings could build pressure in the Republican base for it.”

Among the people who have raised the prospect are Watergate reporter Bob Woodard, actor Steven Seagal, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Code Pink Co-founder Medea Benjamin and Oliver North, the former Marine Corps lieutenant colonel first known for his testimony as a National Security Council staff member under President Reagan.

“Tragically, this administration has gotten away with things that any other president would have been impeached for,” North said. “There’s no doubt in my mind.”

Waldman noted that National Review writer Andrew McCarthy is coming out with a book titled “Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.”

The select committee hearings, said Waldman, will “provide an institutional pathway and the requisite media attention necessary to air all sorts of dramatic allegations about the administration (supported by evidence or not).”

Non-stop coverage would follow, and talk radio hosts would stir up the Republican base, he said.

“All that would make many in the House conclude that coming out in favor of impeachment is the safest political play to make. And isn’t it the logical extension of everything they’ve been saying for the last five years about this socialist anti-American liberty-destroying president?” Waldman wrote.

“In all seriousness, an impeachment drive would be, in many ways, another iteration of the central conflict of this period of our political history, the one between a tea party pushing the GOP to ever more radical tactics and a party establishment warning of political catastrophe if they go too far.”

Among those raising the issue has been Seagal, whose dozens of films feature action and violence but also have an underlying theme of seeking justice. He said Obama would be impeached if the truth about the Benghazi attack was revealed.

His charge came Feb. 22 in an appearance at the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix

“Never in my life did I ever believe that our country would be taken over by people like the people who are running it this day,” said Seagal.

“I think that when we have a leadership that thinks the Constitution of the United States of America is a joke, when we have a president who has almost 1,000 executive orders now, when we have a Department of Justice that thinks that any kind of a judicial system that they make up as they are going along can get by with whatever they decide that they want to do – like Ted Nugent said the Fast and the Furious, what’s happening with the Fast and the Furious? What’s happened with the truth about any of the greatest scandals of American history that have happened right before our eyes?” Seagal said.

“If the truth about Benghazi were to come out now, I don’t think that this man would make it through his term. I think he would be impeached,” he said.

Seagal has company in his worries.

One group is calling on Americans to converge on Washington on May 16 to protest Obama’s presence. They plan to stay until he and other Washington officials are gone.

The event, organized by U.S. retired Col. Harry Riley, is called Operation American Spring.

Riley said the goal is to remove “corrupt” leaders who violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Attorney General Eric Holder.

“The out-of-control government leadership must be stopped,” Riley wrote on his Patriots for America website, where he launched the campaign for the rally.

Riley’s plans seems to align mostly with what another retired military leader, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, has advocated.

As WND reported, Vallely said it’s time for millions of Americans to “stand up” to a federal government that is “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws.”

He’s calling for marches, a legislative vote of “no confidence” in President Obama and congressional leaders, even citizen arrests, drawing inspiration from the 33 million Egyptians who stood up to their government and removed Muslim Brotherhood officials from office.

Riley explains his inspiration comes at least partly from Georgetown professor Jonathan Turley’s congressional testimony.

The liberal professor has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.”

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh says Obama won’t be impeached. But Limbaugh also is making the case that the Constitution is in crisis, an emergency for which the founders probably created the impeachment process.

“You can’t impeach the first black president,” he said on his radio show recently. “No matter how corrupt or lawless.”

But he said the danger is very high, citing Boehner’s recent comments that the House wouldn’t adopt amnesty legislation this year because the president probably wouldn’t follow it.

“This is the president of the United States effectively nullifying the legislative branch of government,” an outraged Limbaugh said. “He’s basically saying … and he has in practically these words, said this, ‘I got a pen and I got a phone and if they don’t do what I want I’m going to it anyway.’

“That’s not a ho-hummer to me. That is major. If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to because they don’t think it’ll matter, because the executive branch will just ignore it, I mean that’s a breach of serious proportion,” he said.

“That is a constitutional challenge and crisis that is very real that nobody apparently has the courage to do anything about because of the president’s race,” he said.

Ambassador Alan Keyes, however, wrote in a WND column that Limbaugh isn’t right about impeachment.

“When Rush Limbaugh says that ‘efforts to try to have Obama impeached or held personally responsible for these scandals is a bunch of wasted effort,’ he is saying that, on account of the politics of our times, this fundamental aspect of the U.S. Constitution no longer matters. With all due respect to Rush Limbaugh (and my respect for him is sizable and sincere), I beg to differ. The judgment about ‘wasted effort’ depends on what we’re trying to achieve. If politics is just a partisan game, with no goal but to score points for one side or the other, it may be reasonable to conclude that impeachment is a wasted effort. After all, the Democrats who control the U.S. Senate will never allow Obama to be removed from office. Doesn’t this make impeachment impossible? ”

He continued: “Mr. Limbaugh is right to assume that impeachment is inherently political. In this respect his view accords with that of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in Federalist No. 65) that ‘… the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed … from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.’”

But Keyes said: “The difference between Limbaugh and Hamilton, however, is that when Mr. Limbaugh speaks of politics he is referring to the competition of partisan factions. But for Hamilton politics means the business of citizens, i.e., individuals characterized by their concern for the common good of their society as a whole, not just their own personal, factional, partisan interests. From Hamilton’s perspective, the way elected representatives handle such offenses is therefore a test of their concern for the common good. If they act, or refuse to act, based solely on whether by doing so they advance their personal or factional agenda, they show their contempt for the well-being of the nation as a whole. They thereby prove themselves unfit for the offices (duties) they hold, whether or not they are ever called to account for their dereliction.”

Polls have revealed American support for impeachment is growing, and rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent said there’s “no question” Obama should be impeached.

Referring to Obama, Nugent says: “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”

He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”

“It’s so diabolical,” he said.

Nugent made his comments in an interview with radio host Alex Jones.

Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.

On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin affirmed she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.

Among members of Congress, the idea has been getting more attention.

A recent comment was from Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican who is seeking to replace the retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

A video from a forum featuring candidates for Chambliss’ seat shows Broun and two others, Derrick Grayson, an engineer, and Eugene Yu, a businessman, raising their hands when asked whether they would support impeachment.

A forum moderator asked the candidates: “Obama has perjured himself on multiple occasions. Would you support impeachment if presented for a vote?”

Broun, Grayson and Yu raised their hands.

Others who have commented on impeachment:

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

Stockman even handed out in Congress copies of a book that has been described by its authors as the “articles of impeachment” for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations and possibly prosecutions are needed in response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other Obama scandals.

Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.

“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.

He said at some point a decision must be made.

“I think if the House had an impeachment vote, it would probably impeach the president.”

But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.

To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.

WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.

Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”

Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”

Earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.

Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”

He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”

Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.

Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.

“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”

In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”

But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe stopped short of calling for impeachment.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.

“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.

One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.

Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.

Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.

And Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro launched a scathing, on-air indictment of Obama, calling for his impeachment.

On Saturday night’s broadcast of “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” Pirro uncorked a blistering verbal assault on Obama in connection with his handling of the fatal onslaught of the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, and the subsequent cover-up.

“Mr. President, it’s called an abrogation of duty,” Pirro said. “You have not taken your oath to honestly and faithfully execute the duties of your office. As commander in chief, you have NOT protected us. This dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment.”

Woodward said: “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaida. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”

Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his second term because of his complicity in a cover-up over Benghazi.

---------------------------------
SOURCE: http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/impeach-o...9zqM8SBOOfq.99 - See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/art....h5u9cq1A.dpuf

[American Patriot]

Obama’s Foreign Policy Approval Rating Falls to New Low

• Sam Frizell @Sam_Frizell

8:16 AM ET

President Barack Obama makes a statement on the situation in Iraq on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on June 13, 2014. Nicholas Kamm—AFP/Getty Images

Challenges in multiple regions across the world have sunk President Obama's foreign policy approval ratings to new lows, according to a new WSJ/NBC poll

Obama’s foreign policy approval rating has plummeted to the lowest level of his presidency as he deals with multiple overseas challenges in countries including Iraq, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, according to a new poll.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that just 37 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of foreign policy—an all-time low in the survey for the President’s tenure—while 57 percent disapprove.
The Obama administration’s decision to exchange five imprisoned Taliban fighters for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was unpopular, with Americans disagreeing by a 44 percent to 30 percent margin with the swap.
“This is a bad poll for President Obama, and not a good poll for anybody else,” Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democrats Peter Hart and Fred Yang, told NBC.
Obama’s overall approval rating is tied for an all-time low at 41 percent, down three points from April.
The poll was conducted among 1,000 adults between June 11-15, before the recent collapse of cities in northern Iraq to extremist Sunni militants, so it does not reflect public opinion of that unfolding event. Its overall margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

[Avvakum]

Obama’s Foreign Policy Approval Rating Falls to New Low

• Sam Frizell @Sam_Frizell

8:16 AM ET

President Barack Obama makes a statement on the situation in Iraq on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on June 13, 2014. Nicholas Kamm—AFP/Getty Images

Challenges in multiple regions across the world have sunk President Obama's foreign policy approval ratings to new lows, according to a new WSJ/NBC poll

Obama’s foreign policy approval rating has plummeted to the lowest level of his presidency as he deals with multiple overseas challenges in countries including Iraq, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, according to a new poll.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that just 37 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of foreign policy—an all-time low in the survey for the President’s tenure—while 57 percent disapprove.
The Obama administration’s decision to exchange five imprisoned Taliban fighters for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was unpopular, with Americans disagreeing by a 44 percent to 30 percent margin with the swap.
“This is a bad poll for President Obama, and not a good poll for anybody else,” Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democrats Peter Hart and Fred Yang, told NBC.
Obama’s overall approval rating is tied for an all-time low at 41 percent, down three points from April.
The poll was conducted among 1,000 adults between June 11-15, before the recent collapse of cities in northern Iraq to extremist Sunni militants, so it does not reflect public opinion of that unfolding event. Its overall margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Those 37% who think Obama's doing a good job on foreign policy issues are the same who think he's doing good at everything else, and should just stop voting for their own good and the good of the Nation.