Obama’s Chief of Staff Says, Impeach My Boss (A Cato Institute Scholar Agrees)
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
President Obama’s luck got so bad during the debate over raising the debt ceiling that even his chief of staff said he could be impeached. On July 27, the Cato Institute‘s director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon heard Bill Daley admit, in not so many words, that it’s okay to impeach Obama:
On NPR this morning, I heard White House chief of staff Bill Daley say, “The president cannot usurp the power that’s in the Congress.” What a relief! Also, this:
I don’t think the American people would find it appropriate for the president of the United States to defy the laws of the nation and its Constitution, without their belief that that president should be impeached. And this president isn’t going to do anything against the Constitution, against the laws of the United States of America.
So if the president were to defy, say, the War Powers Resolution by ridiculously redefining “hostilities,” or if he were to defy the Constitution by signing a law that claims for Congress a power the Constitution does not grant (say, ObamaCare), we should impeach him. Got it.
If Bill Daley — a scion of the Chicago Daleys — opaquely allows that the president is so corrupt he could be impeached, why are the Republicans so timid about following through? It would be a shame if his only good piece of advice went unheeded.
Click here to sign the petition to impeach Obama. Click here to learn more about the Impeach Obama Campaign.
Jon Huntsman Refuses to Rule Out Impeachment Over Libya
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
Here is a measure of both this movement’s effectiveness and Barack Obama’s stark, brazen criminality: Even the RINOs are talking impeachment.
In Rochester, New Hampshire, on Monday morning, former Utah governor and Obama’s one-time ambassador to China Jon Huntsman told a citizen that Obama’s war in Libya may be an impeachable offense. ABC News posted the following transcript of the exchange between Huntsman and the “voter”:
Voter: You mentioned Libya, and you mentioned the Constitution a couple of times. The president has decided to make Congress irrelevant, go around Congress, not — not go to Congress and ask for whether permission to go to war for — with, with Libya. He takes, what he thought, a UN resolution as his mandate to be able to go to war in Libya, do you think that’s unconstitutional in what he’s doing in Libya right now?
Huntsman: Well, last I looked the UN was not our Constitution. We ought to recognize who’s responsible for declaring war and giving the approval for these kinds of things, and get back to the basics of who should be driving these decisions.
Voter: What should Congress be doing in the fact that he went around Congress and he’s, he’s not abiding to the War Powers Act?
Huntsman: I think, I think Congress is, is in a mild uproar about it.
Voter: It’s very mild.
Huntsman: I have a fundamental problem, generally, I mean beyond this decision, just with the decision that has been made to get involved, in Libya, in a tribal country, when we have no definable interest at stake, we have no exit strategy. Look in Afghanistan, you want to get involved in tribal government? How hard it is to extricate yourself once you’ve gotten involved? Let history be your guide. Thank you.
Voter: Do you think it’s impeachable?
Huntsman: I’ll let Congress make that decision.
The mainstream media, flexing its sagging muscles, tried to turn Huntsman’s words into a bigger scandal than the president’s unconstitutional war itself. To his credit, when pushed for a clarification, Huntsman replied, “Congress should do whatever Congress chooses to do.”
As proof of Republican “extremism,” that is pretty weak stuff. Uber-Democrat Jerrold Nadler has compared Obama to a king, a dictator, and “an absolute monarch” precisely over launching an unauthorized war — not in a barbecue pit in someone’s backyard but from the floor of the House. But the media have a love affair with Huntsman, the liberal Republican who supports homosexual civil unions and the debt deal. In their skewed world, Huntsman is John McCain-lite, the “straight-talking” candidate who tells the GOP base what it does not want to hear. To media talking heads, this is a dog whistle that, if “even” Huntsman refuses to “rule out” impeachment, then far-Right Tea Party “insanity” must have infected the entire party.
Thus, the media quoted Democratic operative Ty Matsdorf, who fumed “it’s sad to see Jon Huntsman abandon his convictions for a chance to appease the rabid right-wing base by refusing to rule out impeachment.”
Of course, as a private citizen, Huntsman is not in any position to “rule out” anything. As he properly noted, that is Congress’ job. Yet this tempest-in-a-teapot is a triumph for Matsdorf’s employer, American Bridge 21st Century, which ABC News describes as a “Super PAC,” and which captured the “damning” video. This anonymously funded 501(c)(4) opposition group was founded by Media Matters head David Brock, a major recipient of George Soros’ money. The secretive group has….
House Democrats, Media are Pressing Obama Toward Impeachment
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
Historians agree empires and presidencies die from imperial overreach. Now Barack Obama’s closest allies in the Democratic Party, the far-Left, and the media are encouraging him to take actions that will lead inexorably to his impeachment. The president’s hubris and lawlessness seem destined to collide with Washington’s tense polemical atmosphere in a showdown that will put his presidency on the chopping block.
The leaders of the House Democratic Caucus this week urged the president to usurp Congressional authority and order the government to continue borrowing money, (mis)using the 14th Amendment. Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut called the provision “the fail-safe option” to assure Republicans do not hold the American people hostage.” Larson added House Democrats are “prepared to stand behind” Obama all the way.
Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina played the race card in justifying his call for an executive power grab:
I was joking to my staff the other day: “Tell me the bill number for the Emancipation Proclamation.” It was an executive order. We integrated the armed services by executive order. We integrated the public schools by executive order. Sometimes executives must order that things get done…If the president gets up to August 2 without a piece of legislation, he should not allow this country to go into default. He should sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment and send that to all the governmental agencies for us to continue to pay our bills.
This, Clyburn said, would “calm to the American people.”
He added, almost as an afterthought, “discussion about the legality of that can continue.”
Xavier Becerra, D-CA, went further. He said Obama had to raise the debt ceiling “just as the president took out Osama bin Laden in a way that some presidents wouldn’t have done it.” Thus, preserving big government spending from Republicans takes on the same moral urgency as saving America from al-Qaeda. Becerra sidestepped the legal issue altogether, saying, “The Republicans through their failure have given you license to do whatever it takes.”
The press conference was the most assertive lobbying for this dangerous course of action, which is enjoying increasingly broad support in both houses of Congress. Earlier this week Connecticut’s Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who defeated wrestling executive Linda McMahon in 2010, said the measure “might be something that arguably could be done in the face of genuine crisis, in the face of catastrophe.”
Other prominent party leaders have lent their rhetorical support, however dissembling. Bill Clinton lied that, if were he ever faced with an imminent government shutdown, he would act unilaterally “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.” (What was this, “Tweet to my 49-year-old self”?)
Ironically, as these Congressmen encouraged Obama to take unprecedented (and unconstitutional) power over the nation’s purse, Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz accused House Republicans of trying to impose a “dictatorship.”
The Democrats’ allies in the media have done their share to keep talk of this political crime alive….
Video: Bachmann Would Impeach Obama “Within Seconds” of 14th Amendment Scheme
Legal Experts: Obama Social Security Hysteria is a Lie
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
The scare and intimidation tactics the president has employed during the debt ceiling debate have grown so outrageous that two experts on the Social Security system are imploring Barack Obama, “Mr. President, please stop needlessly scaring the millions who rely on Social Security benefits.”
Obama warned in his nationally televised speech on Monday night that if Congress does not vote to raise the debt ceiling by August 2, “we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses. ”
Social Security historian Nancy Altman and Pepperine Law School professor Mark Scarberry have noted that, in fact, no such threat exists. They write that, while it is true “employer and employee contributions are less than the cost of all benefits plus all administrative costs,” those contributions “are just one source of Social Security revenue.” Another source is investments backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States,” which the president and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner can….
Veteran Black Newsman Says, Impeach Obama
by Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
Whatever groups might abandon Barack Obama in the polls, everyone knew black Americans would be the last to jump ship. Although the average black family’s net worth fell 83 percent between 2007 and 2009, a whopping 86 percent blacks still approve of the president. However, he lost Glen Ford, the “progressive” radio host of the Black Agenda Report, who has spent more than 40 years in journalism. In a recent commentary, Ford said not only should blacks disapprove of Obama’s performance, but they should call for his impeachment.
Ford drew attention to the Voters for Peace impeachment campaign, repeating its five impeachable offenses, with particular emphasis on the war in Libya.
“There has to be a multitude of impeachable offenses connected to the war on Libya alone, but they’re just the latest in a long list of high crimes and misdemeanors racked up by the first black president,” Ford said.
[W]ith Obama, we get a continuity of George Bush’s crimes, plus a whole host of new ones. Call it Bush-Plus. But, unlike during Bush’s crime spree, there is little clamor for Obama’s head outside the racist Right. If Michelle keeps Barack in check and there are no sexual indiscretions, it looks like he’ll have a record-breaking term in office, in terms of breaking the law. And Black Americans, by clinging to Obama, will lose the distinction of being a people that cherish justice most of all.
You can listen to the commentary here:
To sign the Impeach Obama petition, click here.
Senator: Obama’s “Criminality…Quite Obvious” in Fast and Furious
Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com
A senior Senate Republican has accused the Justice Department of a “cover-up” by limiting information to Congress about a botched gun running program along the southwest border.
“I think they’re trying to cover up now by not giving us all the information that we want,” Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNSNews.com.
“In regard to criminality, this is quite obvious there is criminal activity when our own government suggests our own laws ought to be broken,” he said. “Isn’t it just as criminal if we do that, as [it would be] if Chuck Grassley did it as a private citizen?”
Grassley is investigating a gun running operation led by the Phoenix division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and also involving the Drug Enforcement Administration and FBI.
“Operation Fast and Furious,” saw federal law enforcement officials knowingly allow guns to be sold to straw purchasers for the purpose of tracing the firearms, which included AK 47s assault rifles, to Mexican drug trafficking gangs.
The initiative began in September 2009, but was halted after two of the weapons were found at the scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder in December 2010. Although Operation Fast and Furious ended with the indictment of 20 straw purchasers, no-one from the drug cartels – the primary target of the program – was brought to justice.
The Justice Department assigned the Office of Inspector General to conduct an internal investigation into the affair.
Video: Impeachment Debate — at the New York Times
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
Serious discussion of impeachment has reached the most influential publication in the United States. The New York Times recently featured a Bloggingheads discussion under the headline, “Libya and Impeachment.”
The 70-minute discussion pitted Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com against Ilya Somin of George Mason University Law School. (Somin also blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy.) Last month, Greenwald told Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now!” he believed Obama’s Libyan war is an impeachable offense. Somin has stated the Libyan war violates the Constitution. Although the conversation winds over such topics as the War Powers Resolution, the debt ceiling, and drug legalization, the first 40 percent of the video focuses on Libya. The impeachment talk begins at 25 minutes in.
Since this is a New York Times debate, it means the option is discarded out of hand. Both agree it is “the most extreme” remedy and argue it is not “practical, or even…desirable.” Besides, it “would cause more harm than good.”
Instead, the conservative, Somin, argues House Republicans should just authorize the war. “A less drastic measure would be for Congress to pass a resolution that does authorize a continuation of U.S. military force in Libya, at least for some time,” Somin said. As David Frum recently wrote on the debt ceiling, apparently the Beltway thinking is when Obama violates the Constitution, conservatives should just cave.
Some of us have another solution, which we wish would have gotten a more serious airing in the Old Gray Lady.
Click here to learn more about the Impeach Obama Campaign.
Video: If Obama Holds Up Social Security Checks, Impeach Him
USA Prepares hosts Mark Wright and Vincent Finelli call upon the US Congress to consider filing articles of impeachment against President Obama for fiscal terrorist threats toward the American people.
Frum Tells GOP to Raise Debt Ceiling — To Spare Obama Impeachment
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
For most of his term, Barack Obama has been flirting with impeachment like Bill Clinton at a sorority on open bar night, but he may be set to go too far even by Washington’s standards. Administration officials suggested if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, the president may (wrongly) invoke the 14th Amendment to force the nation to borrow money. Last Tuesday Rep. Tim Scott, R-SC, said such an overreach of executive power would be “an impeachable act,” and the next day Texas Republican Pete Olson said Scott is “not a lonely voice.” Although Timothy Geithner backed down by week’s end, it is not clear that his scheme — or the equally unconstitutional compromise Mitch McConnell offered — will not rise again, provoking a constitutional crisis. Even David Frum, the most assertive voice of Republican liberalization, has concluded House Republicans will at least rumble about impeaching Obama if he blatantly violates the Constitution. Flummoxed at the possibility, he has advised Republicans to shut up and raise the debt ceiling to prevent Obama from having to commit an impeachable offense.
Frum proffered his bizarre advice in an article published on his eponymous FrumForum entitled, “Can the Debt Crisis Lead to Impeachment?”
Frum correctly noted, “The debt-ceiling crisis is growing into an impending constitutional crisis.” He is far from alone in assessing the severity of Obama’s threatened actions. Stan Collender wrote last Tuesday, “A number of people I communicated with this past week thought that the president invoking the 14th Amendment to justify federal borrowing would lead to impeachment proceedings in the House, even if there is little chance that the Senate would ever vote to convict.” Georgetown Law School professor Louis Michael Seidman, who supports the president’s right to unilaterally borrow money in theory, has warned, “There would be a constitutional crisis.” Matthew Vadum of The American Spectator agreed this would be one of Obama’s many impeachable offenses.
Frum conceded….
Issa Asks If Obama Used White House for Illegal Fundraising (Video)
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
As the Obama administration threatens to cut off the meager checks Social Security recipients must live on if Republican leaders do not agree to raise the debt ceiling, one House Republican is exploring the massive campaign checks Democrats may have illegally solicited inside the White House. Congressman Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, sent a scathing 10-page letter to Obama counsel Kathryn Ruemmler on Monday demanding materials that help him determine whether Obama has violated campaign finance laws multiple times.
Issa requested four separate categories of information. The president’s “Dinner with Barack and Joe” video shot in the White House. Cleta Mitchell,a member of the American Bar Association’s election law committee, told CNSNews.com, “I think this is a violation” of federal law, which prohibits….
A Congressman Confirms GOP is Talking Impeachment
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
Barack Obama’s threat to bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling has stirred significant talk of impeachment — and not just on talk radio. A Republican Congressman has confirmed some of his colleagues are talking about initiating impeachment hearings. Scott Keyes of ThinkProgress.org asked Rep. Pete Olson of Texas: “Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina yesterday in a town hall said if President Obama were to just ignore the debt ceiling, then he might be favoring bringing up articles of impeachment. Is that something that you’ve heard discussed much among your colleagues?” Olson replied, “A little bit.” Olson quickly pivoted to repeating talking points about the debt ceiling, so Think Progress’s Lee Fang followed up: “So Congressman Scott, is he just a lonely voice or are there a large number of people who are talking about this?” Olson answered, “He’s not a lonely voice.”
Congressman Olson’s statement confirms that a number of Congressmen are discussing a motion to remove Barack Obama from office.
(Story continues after the video)
Tim Scott is not the first member of the present Congress to raise impeachment….
Impeachment Works? Obama Backs Off Fascist Debt Ceiling Threat
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
Conservatives who say they believe in “peace through strength” might take a lesson from the Obama administration this week. Its officials walked back discussion of an end-run around Congress on the debt ceiling after Republicans stepped up their talk of impeaching Barack Obama.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had raised the possibility the president might unilaterally raise the debt ceiling under the pretext of the 14th Amendment. On Tuesday, Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina told the Tea Party group LowCountry 9.12, “that is an impeachable act…This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation, if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our Founding Fathers.”
The next day, Texas Republican Pete Olson told the left-wing website ThinkProgress.org that Scott is “not a lonely voice” on impeachment.
Even Obama supporters distanced themselves from such a blatant violation of the separation of powers. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who was a judicial adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign, wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled, We Cannot Pretend the Debt Ceiling is Unconstitutional.” He noted the dramatic implications of the proposed usurpation of powers: “In theory, Congress could pay debts not only by borrowing more money, but also by exercising its powers to impose taxes, to coin money or to sell federal property. If the president could usurp the congressional power to borrow, what would stop him from taking over all these other powers, as well?”
This growing resistance may explain why the Obama administration is distancing itself from this dictatorial action wrapped in the Constitution.
On Friday, Geithner….
Congressman Calls Obama’s Debt Ceiling Proposal “An Impeachable Act” (Video)
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
Not all Republicans are rolling over in the face of President Obama’s unconstitutional usurpation of power. Rep. Tim Scott, R-SC, said if the president moves forward with a plan to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional authority, he would consider it “an impeachable act.” Scott told the Tea Party group LowCountry 9.12 on Tuesday:
This president is looking to usurp congressional oversight to find a way to get it done without us. My position is that is an impeachable act, from my perspective. There are a lot of things people say, “Are you going to impeach the president over that?” — No. But this? This is catastrophic. This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our Founding Fathers over something this significant…There will be a revolt among the American people, and that’s what it takes.
Americans are fortunate some Congressmen take their oath of office seriously. And Rep. Scott is right; it is going to take a citizens’ uprising to force Congress to do what is right. We have to be willing to do our part to hold the president accountable for his crimes. Congress must have the courage to do its part and begin impeachment. And Heaven knows, Barack Obama has done his part.
Click here to learn more about the Impeach Obama Campaign. Click here to sign the petition to impeach Obama. Click here to see other steps you can take to keep this process rolling
Obama Says Libya is Not War, It’s “Noise”
Jim Emerson, FloydReports.com
When asked about his personal war against Libya and criticism about ignoring congress in a blatant disregard of the War Powers Act the President brushed both aside as just “noise”. Obama has no intention to seek congressional approval as required by law. The President wants Americans to ignore the fact that the incursion into Libya was supposed to be a US Lead effort to establish a UN mandated “No Fly Zone” and no more.
He wants us to overlook the fact that this “kinetic military exercise” which started as a NATO air operations is now an overt effort to assassinate Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi.
Congress Strikes Back
In an effort to justify the president’s contempt for the law, legal adviser to the State Department Harold Koh stated “From the outset, we noted that the situation in Libya does not constitute a war”. Outraged, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) shot back, “When you have an operation that goes on for months, costs billions of dollars, where the United States is providing two-thirds of the troops, even under the NATO fig leaf, where they’re dropping bombs that are killing people, where you’re paying your troops offshore combat pay and there are areas of prospective escalation — something I’ve been trying to get a clear answer from with this administration for several weeks now, and that is the possibility of a ground presence in some form or another, once the Qaddafi regime expires — I would say that’s hostilities.”
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) accused the White House of “sticking a stick in the eye of Congress,” saying it had done “a great disservice to our country.”
On the other hand, Senators John Kerry ( D. Mass.) and John McCain (R. Az.) have passed a resolution supporting the president’s action while asking the House and fellow senators to forget how president Obama didn’t obey….
Is Obama Impeachable? Let Me Count the Ways….
Matthew Vadum, The American Spectator
Not that I’ve been watching closely, but so far I count at least four possible grounds for the impeachment of the president of these United States.
I am not suggesting impeachment proceedings would be a good idea. I’m just keeping score, the same thing the president does.
The latest impeachment ground, if President Obama follows through on it, is his kingly proposal to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling without congressional approval.
Liberals are often impervious to reason, preferring to see the Constitution as authorizing everything they see as good and prohibiting everything they see as bad. “When a crisis occurs, instead of solving it, Democrats use it as an excuse to expand their power,” notes Republican historian Michael Zak.
So it wasn’t terribly surprising the other day when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner waved the Fourteenth Amendment around like a magic wand. The fourth clause of the amendment states:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Obama zombies like liberal Bruce Bartlett seem to think that because “[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned” somehow this means a) that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional and b) the president gets to authorize borrowing without congressional approval. Maybe in their eyes there is also an option c) which fantasizes that because debts are falling due borrowing is automatically authorized or mandated by operation of law.
In other words, even though Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power “[t]o borrow money on the credit of the United States,” it doesn’t matter. Congressional control over borrowing is irrelevant because the Dear Leader says so.
Why bother having a Congress with the power of the purse then?
In reverse chronological order, the other three prospective grounds for impeachment are….
Admission: The Left Won’t Back Impeachment Because Obama’s Black
Philip C. Restino Jr., OpEdNews
Twenty years ago after U.S. forces had driven the Iraqi military out of Kuwait and back into Iraq, President George H.W. Bush as Commander in Chief ordered the U.S. military to cease-fire on February 28, 1991. Years later, in his 1998 memoir “A World Transformed,” Bush admitted that the reason he chose to order the cease-fire was because he understood that advancing further into Iraq, a country that had not attacked the U.S., and overthrowing its government could easily be seen as an illegal war of aggression and thus warrant a call from the American people for his removal from office by the Constitutional remedy of impeachment. It was the fear of a call for impeachment by the American people that in effect stopped the President from continuing the war.
Since the Presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton during the 1990′s, which immediately followed the Presidency of Republican George H.W. Bush, the American people have allowed a practice of the President acting as a “unitary executive” unaccountable to the rule of law in ordering the U.S. military into unprovoked, illegal wars of aggression and occupation.
During the Presidency of Republican George W. Bush, attempts were made to even re-define the office of the Presidency as a “unitary executive” with literally dictatorial powers beyond the rule of law. Now, because the American people have still not spoken up, the current Presidency of Democrat Barack Obama has allowed the President of the United States to order young Americans to war without consulting the American people’s representatives in Congress or even having to concoct a lie about the U.S. facing a “justifiable” threat to its national security.
President Obama’s ordering of the March 19, 2011, attack on Libya, without even consulting Congress, let alone getting a Declaration of War or other type of Congressional approval for the attack, has led to a good amount of discussion as to how the President could very well be impeached for having unilaterally ordered such an attack. People from both ends of the political spectrum, to include members of Congress, have been quite clear in publicly stating that the President’s attack on Libya is not only an impeachable offense, as per Democrat Representative and 2008 Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, but it also makes him accountable for war crimes, as per Republican Representative and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul from Texas.
Notable legal experts and scholars from both the left and the right, including former Democrat U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, former Republican Deputy U.S. Attorney General Bruce Fein, and Professor of Law Francis Boyle, have publicly offered their services to assist in carrying out impeachment proceedings against President Obama over his unconstitutional and otherwise illegal war on Libya to any member of Congress willing to step forward and introduce Articles of Impeachment.
Let us not forget that it was the former Constitutional Law Professor and U.S. Senator Barack H. Obama who said himself during a December 20, 2007, interview with the Boston Globe that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
The sovereign nation of Libya posed no such threat whatsoever to the United States, and Obama’s ordering of more than 120 Cruise Missiles fired into Libya on just the first day of his own March 19 “Shock and Awe” is nothing less than another outright illegal U.S. war of aggression similar to the illegal U.S. war of aggression on Iraq launched eight years to the day prior — minus the land invasion — which is the next step in the process if the American people don’t draw the line and call for a stop to it now.
With such a clear-cut case for impeaching President Obama over his war on Libya, along with the legal experts and political figures ready to proceed with a call for impeachment, why has there not been a call from leaders of the national antiwar organizations for impeaching Obama? It is obvious that making such a call now could actually prevent him from going ahead with a land invasion into Libya, and even be enough of a threat to force him to finally end the 10-year U.S. wars and occupations by using his unique ability as Commander in Chief to order a cease-fire.
People involved in national antiwar organizations have told me that the issue of racism is a major factor in their failure to call for impeachment of President Obama for what amounts to the same crimes cited in their former calls for impeachment and present calls for prosecution of President George W. Bush over his war on Iraq. If calling for the impeachment of the first Black American U.S. President for prosecuting illegal wars of aggression is racist, then that first needs to be squared with all the brown-skinned people being killed under his command….
Golfing While the Constitution Burns
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
When Barack Obama and John Boehner played golf this weekend, they played on the same team. How appropriate.
Barack Obama has violated the Constitution’s war-making power – reserved by Article I, Section 8, to Congress – from the moment he sent American troops into harm’s way without Congressional approval. He has been violating the War Powers Resolution since at least the 60th day of that campaign. And he has violated the most liberal reading of that act – the one Boehner has adopted as his own – since this weekend. Yet despite the letter Boehner authored last week, which the media presented as an “ultimatum,” Obama has neither obtained Congressional authorization nor removed our troops. Boehner’s letter weakly supplicated “I sincerely hope the Administration will faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution,” but at least it seemed to set this weekend as a definitive cut-off point.
The “deadline” has come and gone, and Obama has not answered the most burning questions of the mission’s legality to anyone’s satisfaction. Instead, the president has thumbed his nose at Congress in general, Boehner in particular, and the American people at large, and the Speaker-cum-caddy has made no meaningful response whatsoever.
Obama insists the American role in Libya is too diminutive to constitute “hostilities,” so his action is perfectly legal. White House spokesman Jay Carney repeated his boss’s party line at Monday’s press conference, stating, “the War Powers Resolution does not need to be involved because the ‘hostilities’ clause of that resolution is not met.” However, soldiers in Libya are receiving an additional $25 a month in “imminent danger pay.” American drones still rain missiles down upon military targets. NATO is alternately bombing Muammar Qaddafi’s home and killing the innocent Libyan civilians they are purportedly protecting. (We had to kill the civilians in order to save them?) NATO admitted (at least) one of its bombs went off target on Sunday, killing nine civilians in Tripoli, while allied bombs allegedly killed 15 civilians in Sorman on Monday.
Not to worry, though; Defense Secretary Robert Gates said over the weekend, in a confidence-builder worthy of Churchill, “I think this is going to end OK.” Gates, who once opposed the Libyan adventure, has pulled a 180 on the matter.
Even Obama’s short-term fellow Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, agrees Libya more than rises to the level of hostilities.
So, too, we have learned, do the best legal minds of Obama’s administration (not a coveted nor much-contested title, I assure you). In overruling his own lawyers, Obama rejected the considered conclusions of Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, and Caroline Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The New York Times reported it is “extraordinarily rare” for any president to overrule the OLC. “Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.”
But then, nothing in the Obama administration transpires under “normal circumstances.”
Two former OLC lawyers outlined precisely how unusual the dismissal was….
Was the Golf Summit Impeachable?
The author of this aside makes a humorous case that the Obama-Boehner Golf Summit was an impeachable offense, because they wagered a pittance on the outcome. (Gambling is illegal in Maryland.) Charles Boyer concludes this piece by writing, “I can’t wait, however, for some wingnut on NRO or the DailyKos to make a serious case for the above to actually happen. Meanwhile, if you listen closely, you can hear violins above the crackling of America burning.” This is not the answer to his prayer; we have a host of other reasons to impeach Obama, not the least being his acts of constitutional pyromania that ignited the fires Mr. Boyer rightly denounces. — Ed.
Charles Boyer, Waggleroom.com
When the Fabulous Foursome of President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Ohio Governor played golf yesterday at Joint Base Andews in Maryland, the widely reported result is that President Obama and Speaker Boehner won two bucks each.
Maryland, you say?
Hmmm, what are the statutes concerning gamblng in Maryland?
§ 12-102. Betting, wagering, gambling, etc.
(a) Prohibited.- A person may not:
(1) bet, wager, or gamble;
(2) make or sell a book or pool on the result of a race, contest, or contingency;
(3) establish, keep, rent, use, or occupy, or knowingly allow to be established, kept, rented, used, or occupied, all or a part of a building, vessel, or place, on land or water, within the State, for the purpose of: (i) betting, wagering, or gambling; or (ii) making, selling, or buying books or pools on the result of a race, contest, or contingency; or
(4) receive, become the depository of, record, register, or forward, or propose, agree, or pretend to forward, money or any other thing or consideration of value, to be bet, wagered, or gambled on the result of a race, contest, or contingency.
(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment for not less than 6 months and not exceeding 1 year or a fine of not less than $200 and not exceeding $1,000 or both.
Ruh roh, Relroy.
Video: Liberal Columnist Admits, Obama Could Be Impeached Over Libya
Reality is sometimes non-partisan. Although a liberal himself, influential columnist Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com has been consistent in saying Barack Obama is violating the Constitution with his undeclared war in Libya. Greenwald is interviewed by Amy Goodman, the producer of the far-Left radio and television “news” program “Democracy Now!” With the growing Right-Left coalition against Libya, why is impeachment not even considered by the Inside-the-Beltway elites in Washington? What kind of precedent does this set for future imperial presidents? Click here to Sign the Petition to Impeach Barack Obama.
