Michael Savage identifies three reasons to impeach Obama, and we have data to back it up!

Michael Savage is a guy with a radio show. He’s a true-blue conservative. He spent a full three hours on his show yesterday on the question: “Should Obama be impeached?” He came out with a very strong answer of yes, and he gave several very specific reasons why Obama should be impeached.

I was impressed. However, I felt sorry for Mister Savage because, being on a radio show, he couldn’t show data to back up and prove the points he was making.

So I have decided to do it for him here. I’m going to go through his list of things that Obama has done, according to Michael Savage, that are so terrible… so disastrous… so downright evil… that they merit bringing articles of impeachment against him.

Here we go.

“We have an out of control president who has plotted to break our borders down… If China took over this country, it could not do more harm to this country than [Obama] has done already. I stand by those words. They couldn’t have done it as fast as he’s done it. And that’s because of white guilt… So now he’s busted our borders wide open… without borders, there is no nation.”

This is true: illegal immigration is worse than ever before, and has gotten dramatically worse under Obama. Before Obama came around, illegal immigration was a minor problem, but Obama has just given up on enforcing the borders, and is letting people just come in willy-nilly. You can tell from these graphs:


Deportations by Fiscal yearObviously you can see the dramatic change in immigration policy when Obama became president.

“The rockets are flying into Israel. Thank God the iron dome system that was given to Israel by the U.S., before we had a communist revolution, the iron dome system shot down all of the rockets fired by the Islamists, and Israel has countered with airstrikes against the Gaza strip, killing some of the vermin… The world is in pieces now. The most incompetent, duplicitous administration this country has ever seen, and I pray to God we can survive him, has wrecked the entire world.”

This is also true: There was never any conflict in the middle east before Obama was president. Certainly, the number of attacks on Israel has skyrocketed  since Obama took office, because Palestinians are emboldened by the fact that he’s a secret Muslim. Here is the data that proves it:

Terrorism against Israel has skyrocketed since Obama took office.

As you can see, from 2009 t0 2012, there has been an EXPLOSION of attacks on Israel that were clearly caused by Obama’s foreign policy.

“I predicted he would break the borders. And I’ll make another prediction, he’s going to go for your guns next. I make the prediction that he will go for the second amendment next. He’s gonna go for broke. He’s going to go to the wall on every last agenda item in the Communist manifesto. The Communist Party USA has disappeared, has gone underground and has come back up inside the Obama administration…. this is their agenda. Disarm the citizenry and then you can manipulate them any way you want.”

This is something that every gun owner in the United States knows to be true. But can we prove it with data? Well, of course we can’t prove a prediction until it happens.

But as one final dire warning, I can leave you with this very dramatic, very striking graph that should send chills down your spine:

Obama wants to come after your guns and here is proof

3 Replies to “Michael Savage identifies three reasons to impeach Obama, and we have data to back it up!”

    1. That article you linked to is so much bullshit.

      1. In 1996, the Australian government banned some types of guns, instituted a buyback program and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. The buyback program required people who owned SPECIFIC TYPES OF GUNS that the new legislation made illegal — mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles — to return them and get paid for it. But nobody went around and grabbed anyone’s guns. It was just a way of getting guns that had been made illegal off the streets.

      2) Obama never says that he wanted to have a compulsory buy-back program in the U.S.!!!! His speeches have always ONLY focused entirely on registration and licensing. When Obama said,

      “Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.”

      All of you wingnuts immediately jumped to “HE SAYS HE WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!” But remember, Australia’s law had multiple components: banning some new sales, stricter licensing, stricter registration, and buy-back. He never said that he wanted the buy-back components for the US. Moreover, he never said he even planned on using the Australian law as a “template” for US law. He just said it was “tough” and that it worked.

      Which, by the way, it did: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

      So the graph in this article stands as true: Obama has never said he wanted to take anyone’s guns. And moreover, you would KNOW THAT if you didn’t spend all of your time reading nothing but hysterical NRA propaganda.

      You are falling for scare tactics and being played for a fool.

  1. Not that I think fewer deportations is an impeachable offense, but you really must explain that graph a little better. To say that Obama has “deported” more people than Bush is somewhat misleading. For one, the first graph clearly shows that Bush kicked more people out of the country and Obama has been kicking fewer and fewer people out.

    So you have to play a semantics game to claim he’s deported more people than Bush. “Returns” means that they were simply removed from the US and put back wherever they came from (without processing). “Removal” (or legal deportation) means that they were processed by ICE (i.e. fingerprints taken and a mark put on their permanent records).

    Bush changed his policy to increase the number of removals (legal deportations) and decrease the number of returns (which is exactly what the graph shows). Obama continued that policy–although the graph, in my opinion, actually shows it leveling off with Obama. As for returns, it’s hard to say if Obama simply followed Bush’s trend of fewer and fewer returns or he accelerated the decline (it would appear that the overall slope of returns and removals combined is slightly steeper under Obama).

    The second graph shows absolutely nothing and I don’t even know why it was included when it only has stats going to 2010 when this is written in 2014–if you don’t have the stats, then don’t present incomplete stats that don’t help your point. And all the second graph shows is that the number of removals (legal deportations) leveled off after Obama came into office–just as the first graph shows.

    Source: Who’s the Real Deporter-In-Chief: Bush or Obama? – Nora Caplan-Bricker (New Republic).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *