Impeach Barack Obama: A Challenge to Tea Partiers and Antiwar Liberals
29 March 2011By John V. Walsh
The time has come for those who
claim high regard for the
U.S. Constitution to show that
they mean what they say. The time has come to begin
impeachment proceedings against
President Barack H. Obama for
high crimes and misdemeanors.
The United States has initiated a war against
Libya,
as
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
has conceded. When one country bombs another, which
has not attacked it nor posed any immediate threat to
it, that is an
act of war. No "humanitarian"
rationale justifies such an act. Only an act of
Congress suffices according to the
United States Constitution.
Barack Obama has violated that provision of the United
States Constitution, which he swore, falsely it is now
apparent, to defend and protect. Barack Obama has
committed this greatest of impeachable offenses. Other
offenses related to torture and violation of the
civil liberties
of U. S. citizens may emerge as
articles of impeachment
are drawn up.
Many Tea Party candidates and paleo-conservative and
libertarian Republicans,
such as
Rep. Ron Paul, won office by
declaring their high regard for the
Constitution.
Rep. Paul
stated in advance of the attack on Libya that a
Congressional declaration
of war was necessary according to
the provisions of the Constitution before an assault
could proceed. If these Republicans do not act now to
begin impeachment following the lead of the very
principled Dr. Paul, their words meant nothing, and
they should be turned out of office.
Similarly antiwar liberals such as
Dennis Kucinich
backed candidate Barack Obama because of his promises
of peace. But President Obama has given us ever more
war. His pledge to end the
war in Iraq by 2009 turns out to
be an empty promise, and he has widened the
war in Afghanistan. He has also
ordered the bombing of
Pakistan, another act of war not
authorized by Congress. If such liberals are genuine
agents of peace, they too have an obligation to follow
the lead of Kucinich who has used the term impeachment
with respect to Barack Obama's behavior to initiate
impeachment proceedings. Otherwise they are poseurs,
and they should be turned out of office.
Barack Obama can himself be called as the first
witness to the hearings on his impeachment, so obvious
is his crime. In 2008 as a candidate for the
presidency he replied as follows to a question from
the Boston Globe's
Charlie Savage.
Savage:" In what circumstances, if any, would the
president have constitutional authority to bomb
Iran
without seeking a use-of-force authorization from
Congress? (Specifically, what about the
strategic bombing
of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not
involve stopping an
IMMINENT threat?)
Obama: "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."
High members of his administration agree and might
provide ancillary testimony. Vice President Joseph
Biden has declared: "The Constitution is clear: except
in response to an attack or the imminent threat of
attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of
force."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
was of the same opinion: "If the country is under
truly imminent threat of attack, of course the
President must take appropriate action to defend us.
At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress
to authorize war. I do not believe that the President
can take military action – including any kind of
strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional
authorization."
Barack Obama has further isolated the U.S. in the
world by going to war against Libya, contrary to his
claims of being a part of a broad international
effort. This can only do more damage to our country,
bleeding now with so many problems. Consider the vote
in UN
Security Council.
Michael Lind informs us of the
demographics and power relationships lying behind the
UN vote as follows: "In the vote to authorize war
against Libya, the U.S., Britain and France joined by
Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Colombia,
Gabon,
Lebanon,
Nigeria,
Portugal and
South Africa. Abstaining from the
vote were five countries: Brazil,
Russia,
India, China and
Germany."
"What do the five countries that registered their
opposition to the Libyan war have in common? They make
up most of the great powers of the early twenty-first
century. A few years back,
Goldman Sachs identified the
so-called "BRIC's" — Brazil, Russia,
India
and
China — as the most important
emerging countries in the world. The opponents of the
Libyan war on the Security Council are the BRIC's plus
Germany, the most populous and richest country in
Europe."
"Including the United States, the Security Council
nations that voted for the no-fly zone resolution have
a combined population of a little more than 700
million people and a combined GDP, in terms of
purchasing power parity, of roughly $20 trillion. The
Security Council countries that showed their
disapproval of the Libyan war by abstaining from the
vote have a combined population of about 3 billion
people and a GDP of around $21 trillion."
"If the U.S. is factored out, the disproportion
between the pro-war and anti-war camps on the Security
Council is even more striking. The countries that
abstained from the vote account for more than 40
percent of the human race. The countries that joined
the U.S. in voting to authorize attacks on Libya,
including
Britain and France, have a
combined population that adds up to a little more than
5 percent of the human race."
The situation appears worse the more one regards it.
Lebanon's government controls only part of its
territory. Gabon is a statelet with a mere 1.6 million
people, smaller than many American cities. And the UN
ambassadors of two of the countries who sided with the
U.S., Nigeria and South Africa, were not present when
the vote was scheduled to be taken. Ambassador Rice
had to leave the
Security Council chamber, find
them and usher them in herself.
Partisan considerations should not impede the move to
impeach Barack Obama. When
George W. Bush was president,
many on the
Democratic Party Left called for
his impeachment. They must do the same for President
Obama who has more clearly violated the Constitution
than
President Bush since he did not
even seek the dubious Congressional "authorization"
which George W. Bush asked for and received. If the
Left cannot do this, its credibility will be in
shambles, and quite deservedly so. On the other side
clearly there is reason to indict Bush, and some on
the Left are calling for that as are certain
authorities in European countries where the former
President dare not go. But at the moment Barack Obama
is in charge and capable of greater damage if he is
not stopped by impeachment. Impeachment of Barack
Obama can no longer be avoided.
President Barack Obama has
violated the U.S. Constitution and employed the armed
forces of the U.S. as a king's army. The U.S. made its
revolution to escape such a predicament, and if this
usurper of Congressional authority is not stopped and
punished, these crimes will continue under each
succeeding executive. This must end and it must end
now. Impeachment proceedings must begin at once.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments