The Case for Impeachment of Obama; Article One:

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has conspired to oppress the free exercise or enjoyment of the right of Freedom of Speech and the press, and…


Official Statecraft of the United States of America, the first one was posted on the State Department's website:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

“Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton) http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

Contents:

“[Elder Woman] Source: LYBIO.net
My age has exceeded 120 years and in all my young life ‘I haven’t seen such a murderous thug as Muhammad’. He kills men, captures women and children, robs the caravans, breaches agreements and treaties. He sells the children as slaves after he and his men have used them. And what’s more, he does this all in the name of God. What God is this? That he’s such an oppressor and so unfair to the people.” http://lybio.net/tag/innocence-of-muslims-muhammad-movie-transcription/

Some of the evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids


(3) Narrated 'Urwa on the authority of 'Aisha: On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, "Leave them, for these days are the days of 'Id and the days of Mina." 'Aisha further said, "Once the Prophet was screening me and I was watching the display of black slaves in the Mosque and ('Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, 'Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)'." (Book #15, Hadith #103)


"(3) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (Book #62, Hadith #137)"


Volume 4, Book 52, Number 191:

Narrated Abdullah bin Abbas:
"He said, 'Do the noble or the poor follow him?' I replied, 'It is the poor who follow him.' He said, 'Are they increasing or decreasing (day by day)?' I replied,' They are increasing.' He said, 'Does anybody amongst those who embrace his (the Prophet's) Religion become displeased and then discard his Religion?'. I replied, 'No. ' He said, 'Does he break his promises? I replied, 'No, but we are now at truce with him and we are afraid that he may betray us." Abu Sufyan added, "Other than the last sentence, I could not say anything against him. Caesar then asked, 'Have you ever had a war with him?' I replied, 'Yes.' He said, 'What was the outcome of your battles with him?' I replied, 'The result was unstable; sometimes he was victorious and sometimes we.' He said, 'What does he order you to do?' I said, 'He tells us to worship Allah alone, and not to worship others along with Him, and to leave all that our fore-fathers used to worship. He orders us to pray, give in charity, be chaste, keep promises and return what is entrusted to us.'"



“Muhammad then approached the Banu Qaynuqa, gathering them in the market place and addressing them as follows,

‘O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you.[14]’”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bani_Qainuqa


“[2.40] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid.
[2.41] And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is with you, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should you fear.
[2.42] And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know (it).
[2.43] And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those who bow down.”
“[2.83] And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: You shall not serve any but Allah and (you shall do) good to (your) parents, and to the near of kin and to the orphans and the needy, and you shall speak to men good words and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. Then you turned back except a few of you and (now too) you turn aside.”

***


“‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’ said Hillary Clinton.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331806/incredible-shrinking-president-mark-steyn

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

"’[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [485 U.S. 46, 56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.’ Id., at 745-746.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=485&invol=46

Since the video in question was legal speech, and “we absolutely reject its contents” was not legal statecraft, therefore, Obama and Clinton violated their oaths of office, consequently, their actions must be impeached.

 

In the beginning was the word, and the word was good. Then we surveyed all around and fed in the Garden, but we had no word for it other than good. One day into the Garden came “Histah” the snake (an old enemy of Tarzan of the Apes), and its bite killed that which used to groom us, and the word we created was bad. We awoke and learned. From the rudimentary existence we could say good, and others would follow and eat of good, and we could say bad and we would flee from the serpent... For this was the time of freedom and speech, of good and defense. Then as quickly as we had learned to articulate the truth came the ONE, and the ONE put his foot on the neck of the other he had slain and yelled a hideous yell. The ONE beat us and made us slaves to the ONE, and the word was his. For this is the story of the beginning a man, the story of good, the story of choice, and the story of bad.

The good gave us food, it gave us water, and it gave us shelter. For good gives, and the good is light in the jungle to see that which stalks us. The good creates the wheel when we need a wheel. The good invests in better wheels. The good nurses others to health. The good wants no murder, it keeps its bargains, it wants no theft, it wants no false witness, it honors our parents in their old age, and it loves others as it does itself, and if good wants to be perfect it will not be greedy. The good speaks its mind and says what is good and bad, what is light and dark, what needs to be praised and what needs to be defamed, and for that it needs a choice.

The choice gave us either food or starvation, it gave us water or thirst, and it gave us shelter or chaos. The choice gave us light or dark, when we learned to make fire. The choice is between good and evil, it is neutral, for it is not arrogant. Its laws are not carved in stone, for it is not puffed up causing strife. It does not according to edict beat a rich man with many stripes in a congregation working toward parity. Choice does not esteem all beliefs, it allows for consideration of them. It allows man to articulate and to debate the good and the bad.

The bad gave us what it wanted, and if we said, “good,” it was good, and if we said, “that is bad,” it said, “We reject all efforts to blacken what is good,” and therefore what it gave was good in its sight for there was no other choice. For to it only the good exists without choice, the ONE simply will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse. And we gave speech, and nailed things upon the doors of the Church of Good saying, “Bad,” and it said, “We absolutely reject its contents.” For it had absolute power over all people. And the craven among us bowed down with those who bow down. And it told the craven that we had freedom of speech for it is the father of lies.

This is the conclusion of civilization, the good, the choice, and the bad. The good is something that needs a choice to exist without tyranny, and speech is one thing tyranny cannot stand. Tyranny rejects the contents of speech articulating opinion. The bad articulates lies, for it truly is the father of lies, it tells you that since our founding we respect all faiths and at the same time it rejects all efforts to have a choice between good and bad exercising our right to defame what debate and logic determines is bad. It is the context that defines the word, “respect.” So innocent is the sound that we respect all faiths, but in context of absolute rejections of a particular opinion that defames a so-called “prophet” of (you fill in the blank) it defines for the enlightened man the word hypocrite. For the bad is the father of lies and a hypocrite. So now civilization has a choice, it can impeach the bad and enlighten for the good, or it can bow down with those who bow down like a craven animal. The choice is yours, until you lose it.

 

“Condemnation of contents is not a violation of the US Constitution and the First Amendment.” (Shiva_TD)
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...not-judging-all-muslims-7.html#post1062780013

Yes it is if it is official paid statecraft of the United States of America, because the “We” was not Obama and Clinton speaking as citizens while on vacation playing golf, they were speaking as President and Secretary of State in front of official seal, so it was the United States of America that said it, and the United States of America did not though amendment of the Constitution or accepted Supreme Court ruling “absolutely reject its contents.”

 

Bush did the same thing so, why didn't he get impeached? OH!!! Because he was a RIGHT WINGER!!!! The right wing passes the buck, once again.

 

Please provide a direct Quote and link of the same, that is of Bush's offending official statecraft. The Obama administration's statecraft was around $70,000 worth, so how much was Bush's?

Anyway, since you do not deny it is impeachable let's work to together to impeach all three (after you provide the evidence on Bush).

 

Now see, I'm actually good with that perspective of being all inclusive. We can jail Bush for his BS, and hold him accountable, I'd be cool with barking up that same tree with Obama. Alternatively though, if Bush gets the full pass, then so should Obama. Holding one accountable and the other one goes free is ludicrous.

 

Justice is supposed to be blind. Like say for instance you could quote Bush’s same statecraft but leave off the citation, like a lineup, and then we just judge the sentence as to whether it would be claiming the United States rejects something our constitution protects.

In Article two, another topic, the definition of torture is the same for a Tea Party guy being questioned over tax evasion as it is for a guy running a red light… Now I only bring that up because of the nature of the House and Senate recently, and does justice stop because of party?

So there is something we might want to think about, considering the dictionary definition of the word “impeach”; what exactly are the words of the Constitution that would prohibit impeachment of a former official?

So maybe if you have the “SAME THING,” we might be able to go after Bush too. We could impeach all three at the same time.

 

I question the selective choice enforcement of the law. The right crows about Obama and excuses Bush. That's my point here. Where were they when Bush was urinating all over the world? I'll tell you. They were quiet because he was "one of them". Justice isn't blind. It's bought.

 

Proof of what happens when the moon gets too close to the earth, some people simply lose it.

 

Obviously.

 

Good to see that every board has a Flaming Loon or two...

 

So you want to impeach Obama, because you fear Muslims are going to religiously take over? I've seen better arguments. He would be impeached if he was say, agreeing with them, and implementing Sharia law. Otherwise, Muslims are allowed to say what they want to say.

 

Basically what you are saying is that all the Republicans, and all their supporters on here, not calling for impeachment are quislings who have been bought by either a foreign or domestic enemy?

I already had Shiva_TD pegged as an Agent for the Obamanation with all those anti-Social Security topics campaigning for Obama. And everyone knows Ron Pods got a tons of play on Communist News Network, the Leaning Forward for a Tingle of the Third Way Socialist Leg Network, and the Foxy Blond Legs channel, with every Republican for throwing granny off a cliff too pretty much handing Obama a mandate.

Instead of bought or paid, they want book and video burnings. I know there must be some right wing fascists who would love nothing better than to absolutely reject the contents of frack books... So all they need is for a bunch of retarded left wing Public School educators afraid to demean the black man’s articulate speech laying the groundwork of federal absolute rejecting of the offending. Convince enough people he was right to reject the video and actions or precedents easily follow.

Anyway, how’s the compiling of the “SAME THING” going?

 

No.

“We absolutely reject its contents.”

Now, let’s apply that official Statecraft to the Koran instead of the video. Say it was Jefferson's response to the ambassador.



Let’s reword it shall we:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had absolutely rejected the contents of their Koran", the ambassador replied:

How do you think they respond?



I am actually protecting the Koran too.

What part of that do you not understand?

 

Is this about Benghazi?

 

All I can say is that if you want to impeach Obama, quit yipping and get on with it.

 

No, the response to Benghazi.

“We absolutely reject its contents.”

That is the official $70,000 Statecraft of the United States of America.

So imagine it is $70,000 worth of official statecraft ABSOLUTELY REJECTING any post you made, or a book on global warming… It’s a hoax, because the bible tells me so, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs [that Al Gore is Satan and Global Warming is a Hoax]." (Obama)

- - - Updated - - -

Can I please have more than two pages in a topic before I quit yipping?

 

Are you saying that Obama rejected what the $70,000 ads were saying?

 

Take all the pages you want. At least you're not yipping while you're typing.

 

I should have just went to the beach.

1) Link:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

See Link?

2) Link:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...hment-obama-article-one-2.html#post1062781615

See Link? Hit link.

Inside second link is first link.

Second link is to your post, which is responding to my post.

Now go back and hit the first link. It is up there with the “1) Link:” above it. Hit it now.

First link explains everything.

 

Are you saying because he bought ad time he's impeachable?

 

I'm saying that the right wing blowhards have no leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing anybody for the same sheety things that they do. It's called hypocrisy, and the right wing totally defines it.

- - - Updated - - -

They're waiting for him to do something really awful first before they act (like getting a BJ).

 

Yes.

Was the video illegal speech, or has it been banned? Was the man who made it arrested for the contents of the video?

Has there been a Sense of Congress resolution stating that we absolutely reject the contents of the video in question?

“The U.S. has bought $70,000 worth of air time on seven Pakistani television channels to air an ad showing President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video…”
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

Reword it to:

“The U.S. [United States of America, that means We the People] has bought $70,000 worth of air time on seven Pakistani television channels to air an ad showing President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing [contents of legal Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court rulings]…”

 

I am still waiting for that “same thing” video or transcripts of statecraft, speech in front of the seal of the president, paid ads, of Bush doing the same “sheety things.”

I will be more than happy to say he deserves as much time in jail as Obama and Clinton for the same “sheety things.”

Even if Congress never acts, you have your opportunity right here to have a Republican say Bush did an impeachable act, so present your same “sheety things” with regard to Bush’s statecraft absolutely rejecting the contents of free speech in violation of his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

I'm not so sure,
even a mundane monica lewinsky did manage
to place a president into that hot chair.
But I do not see the current president had a girlfriend
called latifa sort of.