Candidate Obama would demand impeachment of President Obama [Reader Post]

Loading

Barack Obama says he was all for World War II:

I don’t oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

He doesn’t oppose all wars- just dumb Bush wars:

I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.

And he is opposed to wars which distract us from our terrible economy:

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

And he is opposed to a war in which there is no threat to the United States, because that would be a dumb war:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

And we should fight with those who oppress their people- like the Saudi’s

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

Here’s Barack Obama making sure the Saudis don’t oppress their own people.

Barack Obama has done nothing to stop the Saudis from oppressing their own people but Barack Obama said we should fight them to stop the oppression.

Both Curt and I have observed how eerily similar Obama’s actions recent actions are to those just prior to the Iraq war. Now so has Drudge:

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: ‘Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world’…

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: ‘American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger’…

The actions taken by Obama represent a complete reversal of his own administration. Not long ago the establishment of a no-fly zone was called “loose talk” by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The Secretary of State said that the US was “a long way from making that decision.” In fact, Gates said, the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya would constitute “an act of war.”

“A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya.”

Now I know for a fact that Congress has not authorized this action by the US military. I also know how someone else named Barack Obama opposed any such action:

Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

So Barack Obama said that Barack Obama does not have the authority to initiate the military action that Barack Obama just ordered and Barack Obama is in violation of the legislation proposed by Barack Obama.

If you really want to read the words of a miserable lying hypocrite- just read the entire article at the link. For example:

Q: Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional?

A: I reject the view that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points:

* The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
* Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
* The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
* The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

Barack Obama has ordered military trials to continue at Gitmo, but Barack Obama said they were unlawful.

But that’s for another post.

And please remember Obama’s words here:

A: It is absolutely clear that Pres. Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology.

Facts.

Until Barack Obama became President, the media increasingly took to describing the Iraqi conflict as a “civil war.”

In 2006 the Alternet outright called Iraq a civil war and argued that its being a civil war was a reason to get out.

James Joyner said that you can’t win with civil wars.

Dick Durbin said We cannot police a civil war.

In The Democratic Strategist it is recommended that one way for Democrats to argue and win a debate about Iraq is to maintain that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and we not stay involved.

Libya is in the midst of a civil war.

“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power” said Barack Obama but Barack Obama said Gaddafi must leave Libya.

In Cairo in 2009 Barack Obama said

So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

Barack Obama also said

“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power.

The Obama sops at Politico said there was something behind these bombings;

Then there’s the feasibility of the larger underlying mission — ousting Qadhafi through the destruction of his military infrastructure, a kind of regime change on the cheap.

“The use-of-force resolution is focused on protecting civilians, not removing Qadhafi from power … but everything else we’re doing is aimed at pressuring him to give up power,” said a senior administration official.

So Barack Obama said that change in Libya will not be imposed by the United States or any foreign power but Barack Obama is using the US and foreign power to impose change in Libya.

In the Libyan civil war, rebels have engaged Gaddafi in an armed insurrection. It is NOT the peaceful protest Barack Obama has repeatedly described.

“The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable, so are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters,” Obama said in his first televised remarks on the situation in Libya. “These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop.”

Obama has not once properly described the civil war sparked by armed rebels.

President Obama says it is imperative that the world speak “with one voice” to condemn the suppression of peaceful demonstrators in Libya and to support their universal rights, and adds that the administration is preparing “a full range of options” that the United States can take unilaterally and multilaterally in response to the ongoing violence.

He keeps calling them “protesters” and “demonstrators.” They are armed revolutionaries.

One need not go back very long in time to see Barack Obama feel differently:

When President George Bush said

The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

Candidate Barack Obama said Bush was wrong and “dumb” to get into a war over that.

Now President Obama says of Gaddafi:

For decades, he has demonstrated a willingness to use brute force through his sponsorship of terrorism against the American people as well as others, and through the killings that he has carried out within his own borders. And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi — a city of roughly 700,000 people — he threatened, and I quote: “We will have no mercy and no pity” — no mercy on his own citizens.

Surely candidate Obama would find this wrong and dumb to get into a war over.

President Barack Obama has committed an act of war against Libya without the permission of Congress. There is no imminent threat to the US from Libya. President Obama has repeatedly lied about situation in Libya. It has to be about oil, right?

Barack Obama the candidate would demand impeachment of Barack Obama the President.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bill, alow me that comment, as I reread your own, the last time I visited as I mentioned , that inflencal group, stating names of other attending the meeting, It was further back than I thought. and before the
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; as I read on your list that OBAMA AND ALSO HILLARY CLINTON,
attended other future meeting!!! NOW my question would be … IF an elected leader is being shown
to approve of the goal of that WORLD ORGANISATION, AND IS PROVEN TO COMMIT ACTIONS AS TO HELPING THE GOAL OF THAT ORGANISATION TO ADVANCE FUTRTHER in power therefor negating the
USA CONGRESS LAWS of the CONTITUTION?. . THEN doesn’t IT make that person a TRAITOR to this COUNTRY, and has to be delt with by the laws of the land pointing of directions to deal with a traitor of AMERICA AND OCCUPYING A POSITION OF OF THE MOST POWERFULL PERSON IN AMERICA.
DO we know when the last traitor in AMERICA was delt with,? and what was his actions done,
what come to mind was an agent giving some top secrets info to RUSSIA.
BYE

again, THE QUADRENNIAL congresses , with that much powers, could have played an
very important role in electing a president in the last election, and by doing so giving him a debt
to repay in some other actions they decide to call on him. like he would be so much deep in it, as to
relenguish some power on them at the demize of the COUNTRY’S LAW of the land.

Ilovebeeswarzone

Just that fact alone that an individual who has attended a Bilderberg Group meeting does not necessarily make them a traitor to this county, or mean that they have violated the constitutionality of the law.

However, those who have attended a Bilderberg Group meeting can be influenced about how they view the future of this country.

It also can have an impact on their loyalties. This has become quite evident, seeing how some of our elected officials are beginning to make it clearly known that their loyalties is with those who have contributed the most money to their election campaigns instead of to the people who actually elected them to office.

This impact on their loyalties could eventually lead them to the point wherein they actually violate their oath of office and/or the trust of the people.

The constitution is clear that government was created by the people and for the people in order to aid them in the conducting of their business.

The constitution has never implied that the government was created by the corporations and for the corporations in order to aid them in the conducting of their business.

***Take a good look at what some of our elected officials are doing.***

Their actions speak louder than words

Bill, yes I see because they don’t try to hide it anymore, and the people are paying attention
a bit more lately, the thing about the world new more evident power, there is a great danger where the agenda of ISLAM is concerned,and today I saw a link from John Cooper of MR CAIN, very good answers
to a journalist, and he was noticing the certain unknown about the president actions ,HE trying to find the purpuse behind the LIBYA medeling, any way as you know that UTUB has other presentation and that other was about FRED GRANDY and his WIFE having had a forum to define the islamist in this COUNTRY, and found more than they expected as to their goal to conquer AMERICA
PUBLICLY shouted by the ISLAMISTS being interview; so my worry is that the WORLD ORGANISATION will be heavyly backed up by the ISLAMIST OF everywhere as they already are, to advance the end of their goal to be in power sooner than we the people could forsee, and prepare the people and scenario to learn how to react, when the first evident arrive, but then it will probably be too late ,

Bill, I say too late, meaning that IT will rquire more efforts and blood to repel the danger when It’s already inside the door, and in full mode of actions, probably also backt up by some leader of AMERICA,
trying to minimyse the reaction of the people while allowing a false peacefull arrival legitimating those
ennemies of the COUNTRY. UNDER THE UNBRELLA OF THE WORLD ORG.

Bill, by the way, John Cooper link is on the post name; WHY I LOVE SARAH,and he refer the
link to the speech of HERMAN CAIN, answering question, and FRED GRANDY IS ON another frame,among others

Ilovebeeswarzone

Thanks for letting me know about the John Cooper link.

Bill, I knew you would find it interesting too: I was also wondering if the WORLD ORG is in full control of NATO which is run by AMERICAN MILITARYS, as I suspect now to be,
thank you

Ilovebeeswarzone

The following is something might find interesting.

Re: Bilderberg – Did Obama ever attend?
Barack and Bilderberg

Recently, there has been much discussion about Barack Obama having possibly attended the recent Bilderberg conference in Virginia. This speculation arose when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sneaked off for a secretive meeting while in Virginia. As the AP reported, “Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane. Asked at the time about the Illinois senator’s whereabouts, [Obama spokesman Robert] Gibbs smiled and declined to comment.”7

The press that had been traveling with Obama were not made aware of the secretive meeting until the plane that they assumed Obama would be present on was moving down the runway, prompting many angry questions from the press towards Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs. One reported asked Gibbs, “Why were we not told about this meeting until we were on the plane, the doors were shut and the plane was about to taxi to take off?” to which he responded, “Senator Obama had a desire to do some meetings, others had a desire to meet with him tonight in a private way and that is what we are doing.” This preceded another question, “Is there more than one meeting, is there more than one person with whom he is meeting?” Gibbs simply replied, “I am not going to get into all the details of the meeting.” He again later repeated that, “There was a desire to do some meetings tonight, he was interested in doing them, others were interested in doing them, and to do them in a way that was private.”8

On Friday, June 6, it was reported that Bilderberg tracker, Jim Tucker, “called Obama’s office today to ask if he had attended Bilderberg. A campaign spokeswoman refused to discuss the matter but would not deny that Obama had attended Bilderberg.”9

Note the date of the Bilderberg meeting and the date of Obama,s comments. Obama‘s comments were made shortly after the Bilderberg meeting had ended.

The Bilderberg Group met in Chantilly Virginia at the Westfields Marriott hotel from June 5-8. 2008.

On July 2, 2008 Obama just prior to being elected President made the following comments.

worldnetdaily.com says:

The stunning comments from Democrat Sen. Barack Obama that the United States needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar United States Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have mysteriously disappeared from published transcripts of the speech.

In the comments, Obama confirmed the U.S. “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.”

Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting a comment on the situation. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.

To review a copy of what the worldnetdaily.com said, copy the following on the internet.

Obama’s ‘Big Brother ‘ vanishes from speech

Read the transcripts of Barack Obama’s speech at Colorado Springs, Colorado on July 2, 2008 distributed by the Obama campaign and you won’t read every thing he said there. Perhaps one of the scariest things a Presidential candidate ever put in a speech was never written down in those transcripts because he departed from his prepared speech.

Now, consider what I said about once some one has attended a Bilderberg meeting, their views about the future of this country can be influenced by what they have heard while attending their meeting.

I found it very interesting that Obama does not want to explain what he meant by “the United States needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar United States Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force…” Nor does he want to explain where he got this idea of a “ civilian national security force” from. More importantly, I found it interesting why Obama himself and/or his staff are reluctant to confirm whether or not he has actually attended a Bilderberg meeting.

The next presidential election could be very interesting.

The views of President Obama pertaining to the future of this nation has slightly change from when he was a senator.

Therefore, the members of the bilderberg group and/or the Media (which they control) may might not support him in the future upcoming Presidential election as they did in the previous election.

Only time will tell if they have decide to support Obama or some one else, who is more in tune with their views and/or agenda, in the next Presidential election.

________________________________________________________________________

The answer to your question, “…the WORLD ORG is in full control of NATO which is run by AMERICAN MILITARYS, as I suspect now to be,…” Is yes

My reason for stating yes, is the fact members of NATO have attended various Bilderberg meetings. More importantly, so has the owners of some of our largest media’s. Yet we keep hearing there is no media which can tell us what was said and/or took place at these meetings.

@Bill: Here is a list of Bilderberg members:

http://www.nndb.com/org/514/000042388/

Some interesting names on this list are:

Evan Bayh

Ben Bernanke

Bill Clinton

Jon Corzine

Tom Daschle

Chris Dodd

Dianne Feinstein

Timothy Geithner

Henry Kissinger

Henry Paulson

Bill Richardson

Kathleen Sebelius

George Soros

Lawrence Summers

antics rocks

I appreciate you sending me a list of those who have attended a Bilderberg meeting.

The following is a more updated list, that I think you might be interested in.

Bilderberg 2009 Attendee List (revised) This does not however include a full list of those who attended, there are more who attended whose names are not known at this time.

Note: I have only copied the names on the list of USA attendees for your perusal.

The names with ** are the most important that you need to know about.

**Keith B. Alexander, United States (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Director of the National Security Agency)
Roger Altman, United States (investment banker, former U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton)
**George David, United States (Chairman and former CEO of United Technologies Corporation, board member of Citigroup)
Niall Ferguson, United States (Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School)
**Timothy Geithner, United States (Secretary of the Treasury)
**Donald Graham, United States (CEO and chairman of the board of The Washington Post Company)
**Richard Holbrooke, United States (Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan)
**James Jones, United States (National Security Advisor to the White House)
Vernon Jordan, United States (lawyer, close adviser to President Bill Clinton)
Robert Keigkan, United States (? – possibly Robert Kagan, neocon historian)
Henry Kissinger, United States
Marie Jose Kravis, United States (Hudson Institute)
Jessica Matthews, United States (President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
Craig Mundie, United States (chief research and strategy officer at Microsoft)
Richard Perle, United States (American Enterprise Institute)
**David Petraeus, United States (Commander, U.S. Central Command)
David Rockefeller, United States
**Dennis Ross, United States (special adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton)
Barnett R. Rubin, United States (Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center for International Cooperation)
**Lawrence Summers, United States (economist, Director of the White House’s National Economic Council)
Peter Thiel, United States (Clarium Capital Management LCC, PayPal co-founder, Board of Directors, Facebook)
Paul Volcker, U.S. (former Federal Reserve director, Chair of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board)
Financial Times)
James Wolfensohn, United States (former president of the World Bank)
**Paul Wolfowitz, United States (for U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank, currently AEI scholar)
**Fareed Zakaria, United States (journalist, author, and CNN host)
Robert Zoellick, United States (former managing director of Goldman Sachs, President the World Bank)

Remember what Ilovebeeswarzone ask about NATO. And what I said about a member of NATO attending a Bilderberg meeting, as well as the media.

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 15, 2011, before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the situation in Afghanistan

Fareed Rafiq Zakaria is an Indian-American journalist and author. From 2000, he was a columnist for Newsweek and editor of Newsweek International, until moving to Editor-At-Large of Time in 2010. He is also the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, and a frequent commentator and author about issues related to international relations, trade and American foreign policy.

antics rocks

Here is something else you may find interesting.

General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) on July 4, 2010, which was shortly after he attended a Bilderberg meeting in 2009.

I am not saying that his appointment as commander of the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) was discussed at the 2009 Bilderberg meeting. However, I do find it to be kind of intriguing that his appointment was shortly after his 2009 meeting with the Bilderberg group

Bill, yes, JIM TUCKER was the one at the meeting HOTEL , I mentionned on previous comments,
scyping his name for memory lapsus, he was not well looked at, as his inquiring was notice by
thight security,now all this tells me, that on all scales of the ladder, they have some of their chosen ones to pull the string on their behalf goal end, by influencing them on an invitation to their meeting
very PRETIGIOUSLY presented to them as a highest honor to have been invited, therefor printing in their mind that they are lucky to have been selected to attend, therefor an eazy sell game
to join their views,presented under the name of BENEFICIAL TO HUMANITY AS A WHOLE
thank you again.

Bill, again as I read again on these infos, another thought come to mind,
WOULD the TRILATERAL option from that WORLD ORG. have someting to do with OBAMA refusal to close the BORDER ON MEXICAN SIDE, and have had that gathering at the WHITE HOUSE,
WIT ALL THE DEMOCRATS CHEERING, ON , while the ARIZONA CONFLICT was on
their discussions, and the MEXICAN GIVING HIS VIEWS ON THIS, which was an only AMERICAN
LEGIT DISPUTE to be settel, not by calling the MEXICAN PRESIDENT TO SUPPORT THE FEDERAL ANTI ARIZONA AFFAIRS.

Ilovebeeswarzone

Pertaining to your question “WOULD the TRILATERAL option from that WORLD ORG. have something to do with OBAMA refusal to close the BORDER ON MEXICAN SIDE,…”

My thought on this is, Probably Not.

The elite few who are trying to set up a one world government is only interested in one thing, which is the total control of the people thru controlling the economics of the world (the money supply).

Consider the following quote from Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”

The elite few use the type of information you just ask me about, to keep the people focused on other things, instead of on them, the elite few.

The more things they can come up with to distract us, the people, the better it is for them.

We, the people, need to keep our focus on the them, the elite few who want to control the people thru controlling the money supply of the nation‘s, and not let ourselves get caught up in the things that distract us from doing so.

The biggest threat to the elite few who are trying to control the people, is when the people themselves get fed up with their BS and start holding them accountable for their actions once they have violated the law.

Bill, yes it make a lot of sense, It become hard when those in power are in tune with them,
looking to mingle with them, looking for sharing their wealth, greedy,to see them shine
in their castle, bowing to them as servant they are,and coming back to a beautifull country that allowed them to rise on top, where they are unable to lead and serve a people full of intelligence,
full of braves, full of pride full of tolerance and compassion, a people that know their laws written long ago that has protect the NATION, a law written to endure time itself, and those leader unable to understand what is a SUPERPOWER COUNTRY, are trying to humble it,by trying to make them servants
of their cause by undermining the CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHT, but never will ,
they can’t make the proud bow like they did, never will happen in AMERICA wait till
the time come to see what we the people can do, with all their inner power coming out all together in one
voice, wait till they rise to the power they have inherit from their ancestors who forge this AMERICA with their blood, wait when the time come for AMERICA TO RISE, and no WORLD ORGANIZATION
WILL CONTROL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Bill, thank you, for sharing your knowledge patiently and precisly,
I appreciate it,

Bill, the thing I notice, that when I visited the BIDERBERG site, there was kings and queen and foreign
guess and a fewer AMERICANS, among those I remember GEITNER name, and JONES, and BERNANKE,
and just maybe 3 more or 4, and when anticsrocks gave his list there where more of AMERICANS, and you came with even more of them, so I don’t know what it mean that the more we go and the more AMERICANS get in the list of guess, would it mean that they have been recruted by the other older one that where on previous meeting,

Ilovebeeswarzone

Pertaining to your last statement “… I don’t know what it mean that the more we go and the more AMERICANS get in the list of guess, would it mean that they have been recruited by the other older one that where on previous meeting, “

This statement you made is partially true, they do rely on others older members, in order to recruit new members. However, they also rely strongly on their lobbyists who they send to congress, in order to recruit the new members of congress personally.

Bill thank you, for your anwer.