Call Rep. Justin Amash to Lead Impeachment vs. Obama for Claiming Right to Kill Americans

[James_Madison_Lives]

http://www.dailypaul.com/273728/call...kill-americans

Looking for suggestions of House members whom you consider liberty candidates. It seems to me that Rep. Amash is the closest thing we have to a liberty incumbent, with his outspoken stand against NDAA.

2014 liberty challengers should announce now their intention to run on an impeachment platform based on Obama's audacious and arrogant statement that a US citizen does not even need to be involved in an active plot to be killed by drone strike or other means by the president. You'll have 20 donors before you know it.

This is as close to saying "I can do whatever the eff I want" as any president has ever come. Even Nixon denied he was a "crook," and somehow managed in his shambling, insecure mannerisms to try to appear appropriately humble before the American people, even if it was only an act. Obama not only does not bother to deny the claiming of unconstitutional powers, but all but brags about it. He calls it "wise." Nixon had a tendency not to look you in the eye, a sign of some remaining conscience. Obama looks at you, sneers, pokes you in the chest with his Secret Service thugs gathered around him, and says: "What are you going to do about it?"

Then he tosses his head back one more time and smirks and says, "yea, that's what I thought." Obama is a Chicago thug, nothing more, nothing less. Many were taken by the constitutional law professor routine, including me. But his true colors have been revealed.

This one is not going away. The rumblings in the halls of congress are that the way Obama handled this was really, really dumb. He could have kept killing us in secret, and made up lies when he got caught. But he just HAD to call them out. The people. The peons. Something for which there could be no good reason except the sheer fun of f*king with them. Just can't get out of the old 'hood.

I can hit your son, your daughter while she's hiking in Peru, or teaching English in Guatemala, and I don't have to tell you sheeet.

But the former president of Guatemala is up on war crimes and genocide, Mr. President, after all these years. Yep, a president, just like you.

US Representative Justin Amash, Please file articles of impeachment!

Rep. Amash contacts (after hours message service):
Washington DC
Phone: (202) 225-3831
Fax: (202) 225-5144

Grand Rapids, MI
Phone: (616) 451-8383
Fax: (616) 454-5630

CONTACT FORM FOR CONSTITUENTS (If anyone has an email for any staffers please post it here, so the rest us can send an e-mail too)

RELATED POST:

Impeach Obama Now Over the "Right" to Kill Americans with Drones, There Will Never be a Better Time

[itshappening]

I dont think it's a wise idea for Justin to be calling for impeachment.

Focus on battles we can win and where the American people are with us like de-authorizing the war (see Amash forum).

It's probably better to attack the AUMF that they claim allows for the drone strikes in the first place.

[Article V]

I dont think it's a wise idea for Justin to be calling for impeachment.

Focus on battles we can win and where the American people are with us like de-authorizing the war (see Amash forum).

It's probably better to attack the AUMF that they claim allows for the drone strikes in the first place.

I second the above. There's little to no chance the House would ever impeach a newly elected President for a policy that he rather openly advertised since before the Republican primaries. It's a slow news cycle right now which is why the media is picking it up, but the story will be gone again once the press get another carrot. If the Republicans weren't going to complain about it during their primaries and during their general election, then it's hard to justify impeachment proceedings now. Additionally, there's less than no chance the Democrat-controlled Senate would ever remove Obama from office, so the question becomes: what exactly is the point of encouraging Justin Amash to do this?

Impeachment takes support; and Republicans believe (rightly so) that it would destroy their party's reputation and ability to govern in perpetuity if the voting electorate believe the GOP held back on attacking Obama till now as a way to circumvent the will of the voters in the event of a Republican election loss. ...And we all know that's how the media would spin it and how the Obama-lovers would perceive it.

If you honestly want Obama impeached over this (something I support), then you need to persuade Democrats in Congress. Call Democrats, not Justin Amash. Justin should be working on things he can actually accomplish and, if at all possible, on those accomplishable things that won't torpedo his political future. We want our liberty representatives to be effective and in positions of influence, not the exact opposite.

[James_Madison_Lives]

I second the above. There's little to no chance the House would ever impeach a newly elected President for a policy that he rather openly advertised since before the Republican primaries. It's a slow news cycle right now which is why the media is picking it up, but the story will be gone again once the press get another carrot. If the Republicans weren't going to complain about it during their primaries and during their general election, then it's hard to justify impeachment proceedings now. Additionally, there's less than no chance the Democrat-controlled Senate would ever remove Obama from office, so the question becomes: what exactly is the point of encouraging Justin Amash to do this?

Impeachment takes support; and Republicans believe (rightly so) that it would destroy their party's reputation and ability to govern in perpetuity if the voting electorate believe the GOP held back on attacking Obama till now as a way to circumvent the will of the voters in the event of a Republican election loss. ...And we all know that's how the media would spin it and how the Obama-lovers would perceive it.

If you honestly want Obama impeached over this (something I support), then you need to persuade Democrats in Congress. Call Democrats, not Justin Amash. Justin should be working on things he can actually accomplish and, if at all possible, on those accomplishable things that won't torpedo his political future. We want our liberty representatives to be effective and in positions of influence, not the exact opposite.

Sorry, but this is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever seen. Newly elected president? It's his second term, he's been in for 4 years. And it wouldn't destroy the party's reputation, it would make it, by showing Americans someone was standing up for their basic rights. How win-win can you get?

If you read the comments on the news articles this finally seems to have woken people up. yes, people like us who have been paying attention know he has already claimed this power, but it has taken a lot of people until now to really "get it."

[eleganz]

There are already talks of impeachment and this whole ordeal with the ndAa lawsuit hedges v Obama will just be icing on the cake. Republicans in congress don't have the balls to do it.

And to those who don't think it's a good Idea or not a winnable battle, it's not about winnable or not, it's about doing the right thing. It's always been about doing the right thing. If you operate on whether you can politically benefit from the outcome or not then you are no better than the scum we are trying to kick out.

Come back to reality

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Steve Stockman might do it.

[WarAnonymous]

There are already talks of impeachment and this whole ordeal with the ndAa lawsuit hedges v Obama will just be icing on the cake. Republicans in congress don't have the balls to do it.

And to those who don't think it's a good Idea or not a winnable battle, it's not about winnable or not, it's about doing the right thing. It's always been about doing the right thing. If you operate on whether you can politically benefit from the outcome or not then you are no better than the scum we are trying to kick out.

Come back to reality

This! +REP

[american.swan]

How much of the house is needed to impeach?
Impeachment doesn't remove a President from office. Conviction in the Senate removes presidents from office.

If you want impeachment call the DNC Senate and tell them you want the DNC VP in charge for the next four years.

[american.swan]

Tell the Democrats in the Senate that having Obama removed helps the DNC keep the white house for the next two terms. Biden could win in 2016 blah blah blah.

[american.swan]

You must make impeachment desirable for the Democrats in the Senate or forget about it.

[James_Madison_Lives]

You must make impeachment desirable for the Democrats in the Senate or forget about it.

Impeachment almost never results in a final vote which passes impeachment. The reasons for impeachment dominate the news and turn the population against the president, until he can't govern and people are asking him on the sly to resign so they can get on with business. This is the time for this constitutional remedy. Nixon was not impeached, he resigned.

[TER]

Paul/Amash 2016

[rpfocus]

I dont think it's a wise idea for Justin to be calling for impeachment.

Focus on battles we can win and where the American people are with us like de-authorizing the war (see Amash forum).

It's probably better to attack the AUMF that they claim allows for the drone strikes in the first place.

Agreed, I'll pass and put my time to better use.

[James_Madison_Lives]

I dont think it's a wise idea for Justin to be calling for impeachment.

Focus on battles we can win and where the American people are with us like de-authorizing the war (see Amash forum).

It's probably better to attack the AUMF that they claim allows for the drone strikes in the first place.

What makes you think they care about what you think about the war if they think they can kill you at will? Time to smell the coffee.

[CPUd]

Nixon resigned because he knew impeachment and conviction in the Senate was inevitable. Clinton didn't resign because he knew they didn't have the votes in the Senate to convict. The actual charges in both cases were not what the press spent all their time talking about; they were mundane in comparison, and had to do (in general) with lying under oath.

There were calls for impeachment of the last president, and will no doubt be calls for impeachment for the next one, but unless someone has a tape of a sitting president committing perjury, no amount of calling in to youur congressman will lead to an actual impreachment proceeding.

[James_Madison_Lives]

Nixon resigned because he knew impeachment and conviction in the Senate was inevitable. Clinton didn't resign because he knew they didn't have the votes in the Senate to convict. The actual charges in both cases were not what the press spent all their time talking about; they were mundane in comparison, and had to do (in general) with lying under oath.

There were calls for impeachment of the last president, and will no doubt be calls for impeachment for the next one, but unless someone has a tape of a sitting president committing perjury, no amount of calling in to youur congressman will lead to an actual impreachment proceeding.

Glad you are so willing to let the final open assault on your rights slide by. I'm not. Clinton had his wings clipped and his agenda hamstrung by impeachment threats and proceedings, and they knew it so they continued with impeachment, even though they knew they didn't have the votes. Any number of excuses can be made against calling for impeachment. In the end the love of liberty lives in only in the citizenry, or it does not. If it lives, nothing can extinguish it. If it does not nothing can save it. Howls for impeachment show that it lives.

[Article V]

Sorry, but this is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever seen. Newly elected president? It's his second term, he's been in for 4 years. And it wouldn't destroy the party's reputation, it would make it, by showing Americans someone was standing up for their basic rights. How win-win can you get?

If you read the comments on the news articles this finally seems to have woken people up. yes, people like us who have been paying attention know he has already claimed this power, but it has taken a lot of people until now to really "get it."

We just had a new election which Obama won; he just swore the oath of office at an inauguration ceremony after that new election. For that reason, he's a newly elected President (or, if you prefer, a newly re-elected President--though the voting process is the same for the People regardless of which term it is for Obama).

If you believe the American populace that elected Obama and cheered for his inauguration less than one month ago are now "awake" and hoping for that same President's impeachment, then one of us is woefully out of touch with the pulse of America. If you believe calling for the impeachment of a President who was just sworn into office after winning an election by an incredibly wide margin for an offense that President made back in 2011, would somehow "make" the reputation of the GOP and win the respect of the voters who just overwhelming re-elected Obama and cheered for his inauguration, then one of us is again woefully out of touch with the pulse of America.

Whether it is you or I who is out of touch, history will decide; but, for now, I think we simply have to disagree respectfully.

Either way, I believe the best course of action for getting Obama impeached is to urge the Democrats in the House to buckle first (and if that fails, then the neoconservative representatives). Strategically, there's no reason why our few liberty representatives need to be first in line for the firing squad, especially when Obama's approval rating remains above 60%. In my opinion, it's better for our liberty candidates to work on those issues that are accomplish-able if given the right push.

That said, I totally respect your "strategy be damned, arm the torpedoes!" chutzpah, even if I believe it's political suicide.

[erowe1]

I'm all for impeaching the president for pretty much anything he's done.

But just for claiming something?