Skip to content

Obama Needs to Be Impeached

Congress Declares War, Not the President

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”- The United States Constitution

Is it just me, or has President Obama broken the law?  If Clinton deserved to be impeached because of ONE LIE, then Obama needs to be hauled in front of a Congressional Committee asap for breaking the laws laid out in the War Powers Resolution.  Has our Congress gone spineless?  No, don’t answer that- we all know they have.  Or have they grown so corrupt?  Don’t answer that either.  We, the PEOPLE, demand that Congress make war.  You know, the people that speak for each of us?   The people we can fire if they fail to do our bidding?  The people we can hire?

Is anyone else feeling helpless in the face of Obama’s growing power and refusal to use Congress as his law making body?  He uses the Department of Justice to say what is constitutional.  Which laws he will pursue and which laws he won’t.  On his own authority- not the courts!  He uses the EPA and the Department of the Interior to make powerful new laws that affect our economy- even our national security.  Because allowing or not allowing domestic oil production has everything to do with national security and our economy.  He also uses them to force us into failing ‘green’ energy, which enriches his friends and impoverishes us.

  • He simply announces that he does not need to show up to Congress to explain his use of United States military resources and personnel?  What?  Did he really say that?
  • Remember he said he would use federal campaign funds and then just didn’t?
  • Remember he said he would close Guantanamo and then just didn’t?
  • Remember he said he would pull troops out of Iraq and then just didn’t?
  • Remember he said he would not nation build and then just did?

Why, oh, why are we, the PEOPLE, not outraged?  Why is there deafening silence from the Republicans when he simply refuses to consult the legal war-making decision body?

I will tell you why.  The Republican Party is corrupt, that is why.  Even Charles Krauthammer dared to say that it would be the worst thing in the world for the Republicans to force Obama to answer the War Powers Act.  Why did he say that?  Because, he explained, then the Democrats would hold a Republican president to the same standard!  Oh, the horror!

What has our nation become, people?  I don’t care what side of the aisle you sit on.  Allowing one man to make war for all of us is the most dangerous step our Congress has made in US history.  Beware, oh, beware, my friends.  Because the day one man can control the military is the day that military can be used against its own people.  Observe Syria, Libya, Cuba, Venezuela.


  1. Hey E, it is very easy to hide behind a pseudonym and cast rude comments at the writer of the blog.
    In psychology there is a thing called clarification where you check out your impression with the person who gave it to you to make sure that what you thought that you understood was really what ththey meant. Almost always, this is not the case and then you give the person the opportunity to
    explain more fully what they meant.

    I spent a couple of years in Europe and truly came to understand more fully why as Americans we are called UGLY AMERICANS in Europe. It is in large part because we tend to shoot from the lip. Because of this we have the highest divorce rate on the planet.

    Just thought that you should know.
    John Wilder

    • Well, I think the most rude thing I said was “grow up.” I blogged for the better part of 7 years under the Bush presidency and continually rolled my eyes as the left called for impeachment of the president for policies like the Patriot Act. My points are well founded. Susan believes that Obama is breaking the law by not getting Congressional authorization thus violating the Constitution. The left believed that Bush was breaking Constitutional law by allowing warantless wiretaps, among other things. I’m only saying that they are both wrong. If that is being rude, color me guilty.

  2. So then we must need authorization for predator drone strikes in Pakistan, right? I would also assume that Reagan received formal declarations of war for actions in Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador, right? The bottom line is that you are a hyper-partisan in the same way that the left was hyper-partisan when Bush was in office. You hate Obama the way they hated Bush. We get it. But the cold hard facts remain: Obama wrongly spouted about Gitmo and Iraq and nation building because he was a novice. When he assumed the office for a time, sobriety kicked in and he realized that the Bush Doctrine wasn’t such a bad idea.

    Whining amongst your minions about impeachment is sooooo 2005. Get over it. Understand that to fight a broad war on terror then the Chief Executive needs broad war powers. Bush needed them and so does Obama. Not everything you disagree with is impeachable. Grow up!

    • E,

      Bush & Reagon got authorization from Congress under the War Powers Resolution. Obama hasn’t and if he doesn’t, he should be impeached.

      Read your history. Stop embarrassing yourself

      • I think his name is ‘Reagan.’ You can’t tell someone to stop embarassing themselves when you can’t even spell the name of one of the greatest presidents. And no, Reagan did not get authorization for his paramilitary operations. Please don’t tell a history teacher to “read your history.” We have no need for authorization from Congress for airstrikes. This has been the consistent case for various actions in Iraq (prior to the 2002 resolution you speak of), Kosovo, Libya in 1986, and now Libya in 2011.

        As for your assertions that I am hyper-partisan, I eagerly await your citation. Obviously I struck a nerve with you since I received three replies of senseless rambling about last nights speech and my attention deficit. So let me make my point very succinctly. I too disagree with much of what President Obama does. In particular, I disagree with his domestic policy. I’m not wild about NATO led airstrikes in Libya. But it certainly doesn’t merit impeachment. And I am absolutely certain that if George W Bush. still inhabited the Oval Office you would not be calling for impeachment given the EXACT same circumstances.

      • Oh, I can tell a history teacher to read her history. Teacher’s often miss the mark. Also, read my answers more closely, dear. None of ReagAn’s (thanks for the spelling correction, Teacher) use of the military required Congressional approval. They didn’t call for it. I never said they did. I was referring to the Bushes. All three presidents worked within the parameter of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution in their use of the military. As for my ‘ramblings’, I was referring to:

        “Obama wrongly spouted about Gitmo and Iraq and nation building because he was a novice. When he assumed the office for a time, sobriety kicked in and he realized that the Bush Doctrine wasn’t such a bad idea. “

        Your words, not mine.

        You are hyper-partisan (btw that was what you called me) because you think Obama needs ‘wide’ powers to do his job-even break the law. Somehow, especially being a union loving teacher who thinks a Democratic President should break the law, I think it would be you calling for impeachment if it was Bush.

        Lastly, I would call on ANYONE’s impeachment if they pulled the same stunt. You don’t don’t know me, lady.

        p.s. I’ll bet you are mad that Obama didn’t ‘walk the picket line with you’…

      • Oh my. You have so much wrong. To begin, this is a ‘he’ not a ‘she.’ I am a Republican. I am a charter school teacher that belongs to no union. I don’t just think Obama needs wide powers to fight terrorism. I believe American presidents need wide powers, including Bush 43 and Obama. And I vigorously fought people who also rolled out the same lines saying Bush was “breaking the law” and “should be impeached” while using as their defense warrantless wiretaps outlined in the Patriot Act or so-called illegal detentions at Gitmo. And again, that is my point that you continue to neglect. I maintain consistency in my evaluations of presidential uses of powers. You choose to selectively view what you believe to be illegal or unconstitutional based solely on whether the inhabitant of the Office has an (R) or a (D) after his name.
        Finally, if you scroll down at Conclub, you may find a post or two after my name since, along with my long-time friend Dave, I was a founder of the site. Cheers!

      • Well, E, I guess I made assumptions like you made about me. You said I would agree with breaking the law if it was Bush. That is not true, which I clarified for you. I was just returning the favor in kind. Also, the attitude in kind. Perhaps if you tried a little politeness when you first answer someone’s post and refrain from telling them to grow up right off the bat, you would get a more respectful answer. As for being friends with Dave, well, that is none of my business. You were disrespectful in your post and you got what you had coming.

        I clarified that I would oppose ANY president who refused to answer Congress over the use of the USA military over the alloted time required in the War Powers Resolution. It is too much power in the office of the Presidency and should not be allowed in ANY circumstance. I take the long term view- I don’t want a President who can use the military at his own will. Someday, that power can be turned against his own people. No thanks.

      • Now that we can be civil, I will answer more fully. Even Krauthammer, who I usually respect, said that the worst thing Republicans could do was to require Obama to answer to Congress. That is a big mistake for the Republican Party. You cannot turn a blind eye on the law just because you currently support the use of force. The end does not justify the means. It is short sighted. I am a firm constitutionalist. I don’t believe the Constitution is a ‘living document’. It was created as a wonderful balance to any person’s or body’s power. It ensured a vigorous argument and forced compromise. That is wise. Both parties are guilty of allowing too much power to reside in the Presidency. Based on the actions of Obama, I have had my eyes opened to a completely new thought: not every president loves his country. Not every president cares about being re-elected. In this new era, I believe it can be a goal of a President to coerce the American people into a new American Union (like the EU). I will be on the other side of that coercion. I don’t want the military to belong to that president.

    • Nicaragua? Guatemala? El Salvador? These did not meet the requirements of the War Powers Resolution- they were short exercises that ended well before the timelines specified in the resolution. Both Bush’s requested and received authorization from Congress for their military actions that required it. No previous president has simply refused to meet with Congress’ request for authorization under the War Powers Resolution.

      The hyper partisan is you, my friend.

    • Did you notice that this was a reaction to LAST NIGHT’s speech? He said those things last night. Didn’t you watch? Or is he STILL naive?

      Your attention span deficit is showing, E.

  3. You have my vote. Our repub leaders are spinless and ball less. We need some real men or more women like Palin and Bachmann to show the men how to do it.

    Blessings on you and yours

%d bloggers like this: