Impeach Obama – A National Imperative

20130213-124309.jpg

By Stephen LENDMAN

Do it now before it’s too late!

America’s Declaration of Independence states:
“(W)hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, (it’s the right of the people, it’s) their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Straightaway as president, Obama violated his sacred trust. He betrayed his constituents. He’s a serial liar. He broke every major promise made. He serves illegitimately.

He institutionalized tyranny. He’s a war criminal multiple times over. He’s guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

He menaces humanity. He’s heading America for WW III. He wants America’s social contract destroyed. He wants millions impoverished, unemployed, left hungry and homeless. He’s beholden to powerful monied interests that own him.

He spurns fundamental civil and human rights. He mocks democratic values. He’s contemptuous of essential needs.

Law Professor Francis Boyle is unequivocal. He told Progressive Radio News Hour listeners he should be impeached. He urged House Republicans to so.

He’s offering his services pro bono. On December 9, Boyle spoke at the Puerto Rican Summit Conference on Human Rights.

Continue reading

Will Antiwar Orgs Get Behind HCR 107 to Prevent War on Syria?

By Philip C. Restino, Jr., The Intel Hub

Well, it looks like Obama is going to attack Syria with at most token opposition by the national antiwar organizations, as was the case when he “phoned in” the order to bomb the crap out of Libya back on March 19, 2011.

After a year’s worth of bloodshed in Libya and simultaneous drum-beating for invading Syria in the same manner, H.Con.Res. 107 was introduced on March 7, 2012 by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) threatening impeachment of the President if he were to take the U.S. to war without a proper authorization by Congress.

Even with the imminent threat of a U.S./NATO military invasion of Syria … which could come any day now before the new Congress is sworn in next month after the holidays … there is little, if no mention of the Republican Congressman’s HCR 107 from the “left-only-need-apply” national antiwar organizations, let alone any public endorsements or calls for Congress to support and enact the resolution.

The most we’ll probably get from the national “left-only-need-apply” antiwar organizations, to include our own Veterans For Peace, is some kind of meaningless C-Y-A statement of “opposition” while the Democrat War Criminal President Obama launches another unabated, blatant war of aggression killing and maiming thousands of innocent brown people, again with the “left cover” he’s been so freely provided over the past 4 years.

To see a 23-minute interview of Rep. Walter Jones done on May 16, 2012 discussing H.Con.Res. 107, please click on the following link:

Continue reading

Obama impeachment bill gaining steam

By Jeffrey Phelps, Examiner.com

Hoping to soon pass committee and make it to the house is HCR 107, a bill threatening the possibility of the impeachment of the President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors, now thrust into the spotlight.

Citing a demand Wednesday that Obama regain respect for the War Powers Act, constitutional laws that restrict a President from waging a war without first receiving the approval of the people and its Congress, was the architect of the legislation, 9-term North Carolina Congressman, Walter Jones.

Thanking the most popular internet radio show and its host, Alex Jones, was Congressman Jones, grateful for the opportunity to speak to the perfect audience for gaining support and momentum for this type of bill. One that already has multiple co-sponsors.

After all, it was Ron Paul and his supporters who started the modern Tea Party on the very same radio show in 2007, with dedicated listeners and supporters that helped the movement eventually gain national prominence in the 2010 mid-terms, with many ‘unsuspecting’ upsets and likely more on the way.

Stating the need to reign the Peace Prize White House in from continuing the constant, deafening pounding on the drums of war, the Congressman used Libya as a prime example, alleging the constitution explicitly states something the government has mysteriously allowed a free pass on for far too long…Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution. Alex Jones added Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

In order to garner approval for the actions taken against Gaddafi in Libya, for instance, Obama went even one step further by openly waging a war, with US troops and equipment, with only an OK by the UN, again declaring Congress totally irrelevant.

Even Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta recently reiterated the startling sentiments in an Armed Services Committee meeting, ones he shared a couple months earlier, while echoing the administration’s open disrespect for the law and arguing for the UN’s authority, over the US, to use the US military overseas, for its own agenda. Open and clear violations that could present a clear and present danger to US national security.

Especially after such egregious acts of war taken by the last few successive administrations, with 2 or 3 panels of experts on the constitution available for testimony, Congressman Jones is looking to fashion a hearing by July, before the committee moves it to the floor.

Continue reading

Obama Impeachment 2012

By Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones, Infowars.com

We can only win by launching Impeach Obama 2012. Whether or not we fully impeach him, we are committed to rebuking these unconstitutional and criminal power grabs and are determined to take the case to the court of public opinion.

–Alex Jones

Film director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone has thrown his weight behind a resolution introduced in the House last month by North Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Resolution 107 states that should the president use offensive military force without the authorization of Congress that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress the power to declare war. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the power to declare war must reside in the legislative branch of government and the president will only act as the commander-in-chief and direct the war after it is declared by Congress.

“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature,” Madison wrote.

In the video, Stone notes Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya was waged “despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya.”

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said during questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that the Obama administration does not believe Congress has the exclusive right to declare war and that the Pentagon answers to the United Nations, not the people of the United States.

The Obama administration “does not believe that the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war,” Stone notes, and “accordingly the president should be impeached.”

Stone also mentions Obama’s facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 “bailout” as an additiojnal reason he should be tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and impeached.

Obama’s efforts worked in favor of the “consolidation of private banks, many of them in Europe.

“There was no investment of any meaningful type in the physical economy, there was no protection of the American people,” Sean explains. “Rather, an illegal commitment made on behalf of private banking interests, to commit the American people to paying a debt that the American people did not accrue.”

He rightly notes that Obama’s actions “represent the most clear violation of the principal of the general welfare of the people in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States.”

In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people and waging illegal and unconstitutional wars, Obama has committed a number of other egregious violations of the Constitution.

Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” bill created the so-called Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, bureaucratic monstrosities that are now engaged in unchecked and unconstitutional economic action without consulting Congress. The Dodd-Frank bill also further empowers the bankster’s preferred cartel, the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years).

The Obamacare mandate is the most obvious violation. “No list of President Obama’s constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine. The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term,” writes Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

Obama signed into law the NDAA with a provision allowing the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. “He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero.

Finally, Obama may be tried and impeached for signing a large number of executive orders. Article II of the Constitution provides the president with three options when presented with legislation – do nothing, sign the bill, or veto it in its entirety.

“Obama’s use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy – not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by ‘executive fiat.’ Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow – or expand upon,” writes Aaron Dykes.

Obama is definitely a renegade president in violation of the law. He is guilty of treason and must be brought up on formal charges. The House must introduce a resolution for impeachment and a trial must be held in the Senate.

It can be argued that Obama has done little different than any number of presidents going back to Abraham Lincoln. Now is the time to put an end to this treasonous and tyrannical behavior. If we continue to allow the executive to flagrantly violate the Constitution, we will eventually end up with a full-blown dictatorship run out of the White House. Congress will become ceremonial and the will of the American people will be null and void once and for all.

‘Impeach Obama’ Bill Goes Mainstream on RT for Now : Use of military without Congress approval ‘high crime’

RT

An American military attack on Syria could effectively lead to the impeachment of President Barack Obama. Congressmen say that any war without congressional authorization would be “unconstitutional”.

Republican Representative Walter B. Jones Jr. has come up with the resolution demanding Obama’s impeachment in case his administration starts another military action without the approval of Congress. This came as a reaction to the American Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announcing that in order to carry out the offensive, the US military needs permission from the UN and NATO alone.

Jones’s resolution states that the prime authority to rule on the attack is the US Congress, but not international bodies be it NATO or UN. 

“Expressing the sense of congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the constitution,” Jones’s resolution said.

In an exchange which occurred at the session of the Senate Armed Services Committee, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that in case Obama administration decides to strike Syria, it would merely “inform” Congress after the decision has been made.

“Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this,” Panetta said. “Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues I think we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

Responding to Panetta, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions said he was “breathless” to hear the statement.

“I am all for having international support, but I am really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that is required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the constitution.”

The Obama administration has allegedly started a fresh discussion on a possible military strike on Syria with its allies, the Washington Post reports. American officials have yet to confirm the report, saying that at this point they rule out military involvement in Syria’s internal conflict. There are reports that British and Qatari troops, as well as the CIA and Mossad, are already covertly involved with the Syrian conflict.

Will A Sitting President Finally Be Held Accountable For High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Impeachment proceedings begin in the House and the Senate over Obama’s brazen use of aggressive military force without congressional authority.

By Eric Blair at Infowars

Since 2005, Veterans for Peace and others have been calling for the impeachment of the sitting president for war crimes. After their demands to lawmakers to uphold the rule of law against Bush were largely ignored, they renewed their effort to impeach Obama once he continued to bomb sovereign nations without congressional approval. Now, lawmakers seem to have finally decided to take the rule of law and Separation of Powers seriously.

20120311-230516.jpg

Obama will face impeachment over his failure to seek congressional authorization before launching offensive military action in Libya last year. Official impeachment proceedings have now been filed in both the House and Senate.

Last week, North Carolina Representative Walter Jones filed an Impeachment Resolution in the House H.CON.RES.107.IH stating “Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

“Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

President Barack Obama becomes only the third sitting president to face impeachment following Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Johnson was impeached for illegally dismissing an office holder without the Senate’s approval, and Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both were acquitted by the Senate.

Significantly, President Obama faces much more serious charges than his impeached predecessors and it’s still unclear what legal defense he will use to diffuse the charges as the legal basis for his unilateral action has been inconsistent and vague from the beginning of the Libya assault.

Prior to military operations in Libya, the Justice Department advised the Administration on the legality of using unauthorized force in Libya in a 14-page memo titled Authority to Use Military Force in Libya, which states vaguely:

We conclude…that the use of military force in Libya was supported by sufficiently important national interests to fall within the President’s constitutional power. At the same time, turning to the second element of the analysis, we do not believe that anticipated United States operations in Libya amounted to “war” in the constitutional sense necessitating congressional approval under the Declaration of War clause.

The memo goes on explain why the alleged situation on the ground in Libya was in U.S.’s national interest, cites previous times when the U.S. military was deployed without congressional approval and claims the mission was an international support mission with no deployed ground troops to justify their conclusion.

However, in no way were national interests under an “imminent” threat by hostilities in Libya as required by the War Powers Act, and supporting an international mission is irrelevant to the Act. Furthermore, Obama has maintained the legal defense that American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities even after hostilities exceeded the 90-day limit of unauthorized use of force afforded under the War Powers Act.

The New York Times quotes directly from the 38-page report Obama sent to concerned lawmakers after the 90-day deadline “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

Therefore, the Administration claims it wasn’t a real military conflict that Congress should concern itself with. However, at the same time, the White House acknowledged that the cost to U.S. taxpayers was well over $1 billion for these non-hostile military activities.
Coincidentally, on the same day the impeachment resolution was filed, Obama’s Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the Libya War did indeed constituted military combat, but claimed the legal basis for spending U.S. tax dollars on war rested in “international permission”:

This impeachment comes on the heals of other Administration officials giving equally flimsy legal justifications for assassinating U.S. citizens without due process. Where, also last week, Attorney General Holder sought to clarify this tyrannical authority in a speech at Northwestern University by claiming “judicial process” was not the same as “due process” under the Constitution.

Yet, the Fifth Amendment clearly states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”

And as Wikipedia defines due process:

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

The Obama Administration has clearly “offended against the rule of law”, and it appears his only defense lies in somehow changing the definition of words. It’s not a strong legal position to be in and it seems for the first time in history a sitting president may be held accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.

This article first appeared at Activist Post