There's a new grass-roots movement developing across the country that isn't good news for President Obama.
The folks at Overpasses For Obama's Impeachment are staging protests on freeway overpasses, calling for impeachment.
Advertisement - story continues below
WND has reported Watergate investigator Bob Woodward of the Washington Post compares Obama to Richard Nixon. Members of Congress say it's about time to consider impeachment. And even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has called for Obama's removal.
The latest American group to seek formal congressional action against Obama says on its website that its goal is simple: "The removal of the corrupt and criminal president of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama."
"His actions go unimpeded, our pleas through petitions unanswered. Our calls and letters to Congress are left ignored and unopened," the group's online post explains. "Our only peaceful recourse is to take to the streets and overpasses of America and DEMAND that our nation be returned to We the People, and that Barack Hussein Obama be impeached, removed from office, and held accountable for his actions while serving as president."
Advertisement - story continues below
The group says America "is in its greatest time of peril in since the Founding Fathers bravely fought in the Revolutionary War."
"Lady Liberty is calling YOU to stand up, to speak out, to take to the streets and DEMAND that the corrupt tyrant be removed from the White House, and all of those who colluded with him in his crimes against the United States be held accountable to the full extent of the law, with the maximum sentences handed down upon them."
The site lists Obama's offenses: Benghazi, Boston, Fast and Furious, $16 trillion, Obscene spending, Czars, IRS abuses, Voter fraud, ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, sealed records, 57 states, Ayers, Holder, Pelosi, incessant lying, vacations, White House tours, firing generals, Keystone, Solyndra, bailout, birth certificate, Libya, Obamacare, voter intimidation, bowing to foreigners and dozens mores.
The Houston Chronicle reported Houston commuters encountered a handful of colorful signs placed on an overpass over Interstate 10 calling for Obama's impeachment.
They also posted online a video of a protest in Elk Grove Village, Ill.
Advertisement - story continues below
WND has reported previously on many calls for Obama's impeachment, which would put him in the company of Nixon and Bill Clinton.
The new petition is addressed to Congress and cites a number of scandals in just the last few weeks and months.
Among them are the "lethal and prolonged terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, and the subsequent 'Watergate-era cover-up.'" And then there's the big – and getting bigger – scandal involving the federal government's use of the Internal Revenue Service to harass and attack conservative groups.
There's also the spying and harassment of journalists.
Advertisement - story continues below
"Top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable 'high crimes and misdemeanors," the petition explains.
And that's even before the issue of "Obama's policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process – including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner."
There's also the "disastrous 'Fast and Furious' operation in which approximately 2,000 firearms were directed from U.S. gun shops across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels."
The petition also cites Obama's refusal to fulfill his obligation to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
That's all in addition to the alleged illegal "recess" appointments of several officials as well as the Obama Justice Department's refusal to prosecute voter intimidation, his appointment of 30 "czars" and general contempt for Congress and the American people.
The petition 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 has been brought up by several WND columnists recently.
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 recent poll earlier this year said half of Americans say 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.
Half or nearly half of those surveyed said they believed Obama should be impeached for the trifecta of scandals now consuming Washington.
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."
A Republican congressman also recently brought up the subject.
"I would say yes. I'm not willing to take it [impeachment] off to take it off the table, but that's certainly not what we're striving for," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told CNN.
"We want truth, we want to bring the people who perpetrated the terrorism in Benghazi to be brought to justice, and we want to have the president do what he has said he would always do. And that is be open and transparent. Thus far, the White House has not done that."
Earlier, Chaffetz, in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, was asked if impeachment was within the realm of possibility.
"It's certainly a possibility," he told the paper. "That's not the goal but given the continued lies perpetrated by this administration, I don't know where it's going to go. ... I'm not taking it off the table. I'm not out there touting that but I think this gets to the highest levels of our government and integrity and honesty are paramount."
Chaffetz has been championing the call to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the Benghazi compound that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said last week impeachment was possible over the "most egregious cover-up in American history.
"People may be starting to use the I-word before too long," Inhofe told radio host Rusty Humphries, according to The Hill.
"The I-word meaning impeachment?" Humphries asked.
"Yeah," Inhofe responded.
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.
Other members of Congress who have suggested impeachment for a variety of reasons in recent years include 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.; and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
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:
See Texas congressman lobby for impeachment over gun control:
See Andrew Napolitano talk about impeachment over the budget:
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?