The mainstream media may have pushed issues like impeachment and Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency off the newsstand, but they can’t push it off America’s highways and byways.
An organization called Overpasses for America (formerly known as Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment) is gearing up to take the message afresh to America’s motorists.
As WND reported, Overpasses for America raised a ruckus in October when they teamed up with truckers to roar into Washington, D.C., protesting what they describe as extra-constitutional actions of Congress and the president.
The group, founded in June 2013, is known for standing on highway overpasses across the country with signs openly calling for the removal of Obama from the White House for many reasons, among them his ineligibility for office, crimes committed during his tenure in the White House and multiple violations of the Constitution.
On March 28-29, Overpasses for America once again took to the overpasses and street corners of America for their 11th national protest, dubbed “Spring Break Out.”
Encouraged by successful rallies in Oklahoma, Florida and more, Overpasses for America is planning another wave of motorway protests on April 19, 2014, and pledge many more nationwide events throughout the year.
Protesters at the rallies typically carry signs and banners reminding America of Obama’s allegedly faked birth certificate, compounded by alleged impeachable offenses like the Benghazi scandal, the deaths of Navy SEALs in the Extortion 17 downing, the unconstitutional provisions of Obamacare, voter fraud and much more.
“The need for Obama’s removal from office extends well beyond his criminal actions,” the group asserted in a statement. “Obama and his collaborators must be made an example of for future generations of Americans and as a warning to future politicians that the American people are awake and are none too pleased with politics as usual across the nation.”
In addition to the 12th annual demonstration planned for April 19, Overpasses for America has announced it is teaming up with Operation American Spring, a Washington, D.C., event that begins on May 16. Organizers for the event plan to demand Obama and many members of Congress step down from their positions as the first step of returning to a Constitution-based government in our nation’s capital.
Overpasses for America isn’t the only major voice calling for impeachment of President Obama.
As WND reported, radio and TV host Glenn Beck has made similar demands, and WND has compiled a list of several members of Congress who have talked about impeachment as well.
Among those on the list are Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
WND also has reported Watergate investigator Bob Woodward of the Washington Post compares Obama to Richard Nixon. And there’s a national petition that calls on Congress to immediately investigate the “unconstitutional and impeachable offenses” of Obama.
The petition encouraging Obama’s removal from office states: “Therefore, we the undersigned urge Congress to immediately undertake a full and impartial investigation into the many blatantly unconstitutional actions of Barack Obama. For members of Congress, each of whom has also sworn a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, to allow a president to routinely flout the Supreme Law of the land without being held accountable is equally repugnant to a free country and a free press.”
Tens of thousands already are on board with the effort, which is just the latest in a long string of calls for impeachment or an investigation.
Impeachment also has been brought up by several WND columnists.
Nat Hentoff wrote that Obama, “since taking office, has continually limited the First Amendment, the most singular and powerful right that distinctly identifies Americans from residents in all other countries on Earth.”
“I want Obama to go through the process because he has it coming. In totalitarian states, after all, the people have no other recourse except to take to the streets and spill blood. But we have available the process of impeachment, and Obama should be forced to defend his contemptible lies and actions,” he wrote. “If for no other reason than his unbearable arrogance, the schmuck should have to pay a penalty. For instance, when a White House reporter asked him to justify spying on the Associated Press, Obama said, ‘I’ve still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and I still have a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.’ No, sir, the United States has 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.”
A panel of top constitutional experts convened by WND blasted Obama’s actions in office. Bruce Fein, the legal scholar who is best known for having drafted articles of impeachment against former President Clinton for perjury after he lied under oath, said Obama’s orders to drone-kill a terror suspect were “tantamount to murder.”
“You can’t have democracy and the rule of law if you never get to know what the facts are and you just have to accept what the government says they are. If you don’t have a trial, that’s the definition of tyranny.”
Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project, said of Obama’s appointment of “czars”: “That is a big deal. A lot of people say, ‘Well, that’s been going on a long time.’ In our form of government, citizens vote for representatives and representatives pass laws. You have people heading departments, and they’re confirmed. There’s an understanding that we will call you up whenever we need to. … Congress passed legislation saying there’d be no funds for three czars, and they were named in the bill. Obama signed it into the law, but in the signing statement, he said that’s unconstitutional because he has the ‘prerogative’ to get the advice he needs to implement statutes. Well, c’mon Obama. You don’t have a prerogative to bring into the White House anybody you want at any salary. It’s all done by law. It goes back to 1978 where Congress passed legislation saying you have this number of people and these are their salaries and Congress can increase or decrease that at any time.”
And Herbert Titus, counsel to the law firm William J. Olson who previously taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools, said Obama’s military actions in Libya are a strong argument for impeachment.
“That’s the one that stands out. It’s unprecedented. It doesn’t even fit within any of the precedents that have been set since Korea.”
Obama should have seen such a move coming. A poll earlier last year found half of Americans saying he should be impeached.
“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll.
On the issue of the Benghazi scandal, in which four Americans were killed after terror threats were ignored, 50.1 percent of Americans said Obama should be impeached. That included 27.6 percent of the responding Democrats.
On the IRS harassment of conservative and Christian organizations? Forty-nine percent said they agree that impeachment is appropriate, including 24.4 percent of the Democrats.
And on the fishing trip the Obama administration took into AP reporters’ telephone records in search of a security breach that may have been done by his own administration, 48.6 percent said impeachment is appropriate. That included 26.1 percent of the Democrats.
Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote that the country is in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate.
“The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous” she said. “No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.
Noonan said Obama, “as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him.”
“He’s shocked, it’s unacceptable, he’ll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department,” she continued. “A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.”
It’s even being compared to Watergate, the break-in that ultimately led to the resignation of President Nixon. That was the assessment of no less than Woodward, whose reporting on Watergate eventually snared the sitting president.
Woodward said recently: “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”
Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his second term because of his complicity in a cover-up over Benghazi.
Others who have raised the subject include rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent, who said there’s “no question” Obama should be impeached.
He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”
“It’s so diabolical,” he said.
Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.
On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin affirmed she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.
See Dennis Kucinich advocate for impeachment over Libya:
WND also compiled a special report on the various offenses Obama is blamed for committing and reported what experts on the Constitution believe should be happening.
See detailed results of the recent survey questions:
The administration of Democrat Barack Obama has still not satisfied congressional and media questions about just what it knew and when it knew it about the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, last September 11. That attack killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. The Obama administration has changed its explanation of that attack several times since and has so far refused to identify those officials who made key decisions not to send help to stop the attacks, and who decided not to initially call the killings a terrorist attack. Knowing that and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
It has been learned that the Internal Revenue Service, under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama, has purposely targeted conservative and Christian groups for harassment over their tax exempt status while giving liberal nonprofit groups little or no scrutiny. Further, the IRS apparently leaked private tax information from these conservative groups to opposing liberal groups who were able to use that confidential information for political advantage. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
It has been learned that the U.S. Department of Justice under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama secretly obtained confidential telephone records of many reporters of the Associated Press in Washington, D.C. Attorney General Eric Holder has said his department obtained the phone records without the permission or knowledge of the Associated Press in order to find who in the federal government was leaking information about terrorist plots against America. AP officials have strongly protested this invasion of their privacy but the administration stands by its actions. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?