23 votes

Media Conspiracy & How to Secure the Impeachment of Obama!

We all know know why Ron isn't winning this race. The media. The lack of coverage or biased coverage has seriously impeded his campaign. We are STILL doing well because WE, the passionate supporters are getting the truth out, and the message is spreading.

Now, onto the business at hand.

Many of you have probably heard about H. CON. RES. 107, aka, Obama's impeachment. If you haven't heard about it, it means you have been watching the news.

Thomas Jefferson was right when he said ,"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated that the man who only reads newspapers".

These proceedings should EASILY be the end of Obama if we still honor the Constitution AT ALL.

If Beck HATED Obama so...If FOX HATED Obama so, as all their rhetoric indicates...Why don't we hear more about this impeachment?

Look at the facts.

A) The impeachment is in response to unconstitutional military force against Libya.(No Congressional Approval)

B) Obama's defense previously was, “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

C)Obama’s Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the Libya War did indeed constitute military combat, but claimed the legal basis for spending U.S. tax dollars on war rested in “international permission”.

So we DO know that he did go to war, outside of the War Power's Resolution, for we were NOT attacked by Libya nor were they an imminent threat to us. We know that it was military combat and his own administration admitted it. We also know that they did not seek, nor did they get congressional approval for war.

So how does Obama beat this? MEDIA BLACK OUT.

This should alarm all who read this for several reasons. However, there is one reason that stings when I think about more than the others. IT CONFIRMS A CONSPIRACY.

I cannot wrap my head around how this has been official for 6 days now and has had ZERO mainstream coverage. The only reason, in my mind, that Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Rush and the like haven't reported on this is for some sort of Agenda. To me, that is terrifying.

Think about this.

This SHOULD be an easy win for the Constitution. But first, there needs to be accountability. If no one knows about this, there is no reason for the House or Senate to follow through. But if America knows how blatantly the Constitution was betrayed and the American people begin breathing down their necks, telling them to respect the Constitution and the power of the people...THEN WE CAN DO THIS!

So, bottom line.

Make this news mainstream. Make this news BIG. Kony 2012 big. "Ron Paul is unelectable" BIG.

They get their word out...Now it's our turn!

For the Constitution and Liberty,



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Susie 4 Liberty's picture

Has been well-covered

on infowars...

Otherwise, is like the Extension of the UNPatriotic Act. Was not to be found on other "News" Websites - although the "Judge" did mention it the night before the vote.

Only reason I knew to write my Congressmen? Yep - infowars - again...

Susie 4 Liberty

There are some other things I would like to know

about Obama as well. Like why does this article from 2004 call him "Kenyan-born Obama"?

And has Pastor Manning (long time critic of Obama) discovered the truth behind Andrew Breitbart's death?

And why does this article, dated Dec 26, 2001, say that Osama Bin Laden is already dead?

Inquiring minds want to know!


You've got to read it carefully. It says that the President needs "authorization" from Congress before waging war. Not a declaration of war. Just "authorization."

Then (watch for the sleight of hand) it equates that "authorization" to the "exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution." But hey! Article 1 section 8 clause 11 is very specific about the power to declare war.

Here's what "authorization" looks like:
Notice how open ended it is. There's no declaration of war, not even any specific identification of a target. but I guess Congress doesn't think it needs to be bothered with details like that when its goal is nothing less than "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

In other words, what the Jones resolution does is further erode the meaning of Article 1 section 8 clause 11. To approve it is to approve (yet again) equating mushy "authorization" with the enumerated power to declare war.

Contrast that with Ron Paul's "Constitutional War Powers Resolution of 2001".
Just read it. It's a difference of night and day. Jones wants to reiterate the current mushy "authorization" standard, and call it Constitutional. Paul wants to do away with decades of deviation from the Constitutional and actually change things.

The way Jones has written his resolution, the warvangelicals could probably support it. It doesn't stop them from having the kinds of open-ended wars they love. Ron Paul's proposed bill would not get their support because it would get in the way of the kind of wars they love. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about the difference between the two ideas?

In 100% Agreement

This is where I was hoping for some clarification from Rand when he responds.

Authorization is a GREAT step if it keeps us at the standard we were at BEFORE Libya. Ya know, Congress calling a war something like an occupation to get around the technicality of DECLARING IT.

It at least pumps the breaks and stops the complete dictatorial power of just going to war at one's whim.

AND BELIEVE YOU ME, when it comes to the Constitution, no one knows better than Paul. His stance and solution is much much better than this one.

But like you said, maybe they'd go for this. I think we'd both agree that it's B.S. that we even have to discuss this. It's wrong any way you look at it...WAR WASN'T DECLARED.

I never understood why they won't support something like Paul's Resolution...Because it makes war too hard? What sense does that make? If it's hard, and it's necessary, we will go to war. If it's not...we won't...what's the deal with that?


I never understood why they won't support something like Paul's Resolution...Because it makes war too hard?

Sadly, yes.

I think some really love war; maybe it makes them feel virile.

Others are genuinely concerned about terrorism; not about stopping it, just about doing something big and dramatic so it looks like they tried to stop it.

That's how you get bi-partisan support for stupid wars.

it's all coming to a head

... this resolution is not an impeachment ... yet:

H. CON. RES. 107
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.


. . . this sends a warning to the chickenhawks regarding their next unlawful military adventure ( and they haven't been building up troops around Iran for amusement ). On the other hand many believe that the US government has been operating under martial law since at least 2001 and likely much longer than that... they just haven't announced it yet.

More importantly the blackout of H.CON.RES.107.IH makes the tough job of showing partisan dupes that the GOP are just as fraudulent as the Dems ... and the whole "left-right" paradigm is a charade... a dog-and-pony show... a cruel hoax... an act... political theater ... fraud.

So the way to use this is get it out there everywhere, build a grassroots wave, throw this in the GOP partisans' faces ... and get those little rusty wheels in the brain-fogged people's minds turning!


If this passed it would SURELY ensure his impeachment. It IS a big deal.

For what?

Retroactively, for Libya? If so then this non-binding "sense of Congress" resolution is even more pointless than most "sense of Congress" resolutions. If Jones wanted to do something meaningful he could write up some articles of impeachment and get the process started. Is there really any mystery about why that's not happening?

What's it a big deal for?

What's it a big deal for? Because it doesn't let Obama get away with undeclared, unauthorized war. Better than JUST undeclared war. It's about holding him to a standard and pointing out that the people care. It's about drawing a line...and not letting it be crossed.

While it's NOT Ron Paul's legislation, and it doesn't go far enough...it's going somewhere.

It's implied that this is the way the law is already suppose to be, DECLARED. But since we apparently have to pull back on the Presidents leash...this isn't a bad start.

I don't understand the point in not passing it, and not spreading it.

My take on it

First, it won't help impeach Obama. Applying it retroactively to Libya would be a stretch. Going forward, at most it means he has to get "authorization" which is such a mushy term it's not going to be all that much of an obstacle. And in any case, unlike Ron Paul's proposed legislation, Jones isn't proposing any legislation, just a "sense of Congress" resolution which is not in any way binding on anyone. In terms of having any force behind it, this is comparable to getting a bunch of members of Congress to sign an op ed piece in the WSJ.

Second, it's harmful. It reinforces the current bi-partisan view that getting any sort of vague "authorization" is all that the Constitution requires. It reinforces the Congressional culture of easy war.

Nothing is stopping Jones from writing up articles of impeachment. For that matter, nothing is stopping a grass roots movement from drafting articles of impeachment and then pressuring Congress to make it happen.

fireant's picture

HR107 is NOT "Obama's impeachment".

If it were, I'd get behind it, but I will not support more of the same mealy-mouth, yellow, weak-kneed garbage from the pubs.

Undo what Wilson did

Reply from Senator Dick Durbin (IL)...

Thank you for your message about President Obama. I appreciate hearing from you.

President Obama took office facing a financial market meltdown, an economy in tatters, and two wars. He has taken bold action to address our economic challenges and is charting a new course in our foreign policy. He is also establishing a new level of transparency and accountability in the federal government while taking meaningful steps to alleviate our debt. He has defended the rights of our service members and helped to provide the necessary equipment and funding to care for our veterans.

A President may be impeached and removed from office when accused of unlawful activity. President Obama has not been accused of unlawful activity.

It is essential that we all work together in a cooperative and bipartisan way for the good of Illinois and the nation. For too long, the political arena has been plagued by polarizing words and a lack of willingness to compromise. President Obama has shown that he is willing to work for the betterment of this nation. It is my hope that we can usher in a new era of civility and bipartisanship.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator


Also, what a BOGUS statement. I don't know what benefits have improved for soldiers. I am one and I can't think of any. I can think of how they changed hazard pay to 7.50 a day instead of 225 a month. Before if you were in an imminent danger zone, you would get the 225, even if it was only one day. Now, it doesn't matter if you are in a combat zone risking your life, if you don't get shot at, you don't deserve 225. THANKS OBAMA!!!! SUPPORT THE TROOPS! What a joke.


I sent a request to my senator, Rand Paul.

I'll copy and paste my request as well as his response as soon as I receive it. I'm looking forward to comparing the two.

I wish Rand was my senator!

Senator Durbin is a democrat...so I wasn't expecting much, but it was worth sending him an e-mail and voicing my concerns.

NOTE: Make sure you copy and paste and post CLEARLY or YEAHH will be all over your A**!

yea make sure you post what you are trying to post!

maybe put a title on it. So for me flipping out, i'll apologize..but all i was trying to do is encourage people to contact their elected officials to try to make a difference on an issue that matters, what your reply with no title on my post made it look like someone that does not support Ron Paul was trying to downplay the impeachment as if it wasn't a big deal. So like i said sorry, and next time i'll ask the person why they are a democratic senator on DP.

I'll let yeah thing be, maybe

I'll let yeah thing be, maybe he has some prior experience with you I don't.

On the Rand thing, it should be interesting what he has to say in comparison to Senator DirtBin.

i'll also

apologize to you platoon because like he said i was pretty much trolling on your post...i just got mad that when i looked at bunch of his posts it was comment that each had dislikes

Hey man, no problem. I talk

Hey man, no problem. I talk to you on the chat all the time, I feel like I have a good sense of your character. You're a good guy. It's actually funny that you thought it was a troll...I mean, it's funny because you're right. DirtBin is a troll. So funny!!! HAHA Doesn't that senator's response come off as completely trollish. ha. man.

I look forward to reading what he has to say....

It's just really sick to hear our elected officials condone what our President is doing!

no one listen to this troll

wheeler08 needs to be banned from DP. He is posing as a liberal senator that cares about the obama impeachment but he is just a troll..


Looks like you are the troll....grow up!!!

wheeler08 is simply showing that the stock reply is all you get from your elected government.

I believe wheeler08 is posting the

stock reply letter he got from his senator after contacting him regarding the Obama impeachment issue.

Until he says otherwise, that's what I'm going to assume.

Thank you c2c.. Yes it is the reply!


Ok Relax...YEAHHH

I emailed my senators and congressmen regarding the Obama impeachment..AS REQUESTED. I am simply posting the response I received from my local Senator. I am often wondering these days if its people like you that scream "troll"...actually ARE THE REAL TROLLS and your trying to get the true RP supporters to leave the DP... I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE!

right on the money

I was listening to radio pundit John David Wells , wells report.

this John david character was talking about the comments Leon Panetta said to congressman sessions concerning not having to seek congress approval for war but to seek nato and un approvals.

But he slanted it a certain way , he went on to say that america can do what it wants to do and we shouldn't be asking permission from nato or un to goto war. I am sure his braindead listeners were like YEAH GO AMERICA.

When in fact if he was not wrapped in the lie that is MASS media. he would have went on to say that it is unconstitional what OBAMA and PANETTa are doing, and not once did he bring up walter jones or the house concurrent bill 107. I am extremely frustrated at these so called radio pundits. When are the real people gonna get on the air , besides AJ of coarse. WE NEED MORE REPORTERS LIKE BEN SWANN OUT THERE!

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

impeachment is a distraction!

just set Ron Paul up to face him in the election!
thats what we should concentrate at the moment.

the way to secure that is to win the info war!

It wasn't meant to be a

It wasn't meant to be a distraction, the media hasn't even covered it. I also don't know how this WOULDN'T help Paul's cause.

Think about it...we would be impeaching a president for the exact thing Ron has been preaching about this whole race. Unconstitutional wars, unconstitutional power.

That's my take.

I also don't want to JUST get wrapped up in Ron Paul (Yes, if Ron won = amazing things, if he didn't, we would have forfeit this fight). This is about liberty and I feel this is a battle worth fighting.

The Constitution needs a win these days.

I agree. Impeachment isnt

I agree. Impeachment isnt going to undo all the crap he has done. I will focus on Paul getting the nomination.

That is key. But in the same

That is key. But in the same sense, the reason Ron is losing, is the same reason that this legislation will not get passed or noticed. People need to know.