Barack Hussein Obama's Willfull Violation of the U.S. Constitution: Impeach him?

[Theo]

I rejected Barack Obama pretty early in his candidacy to be our President, and I've been vindicated pretty much across the board in my assessments on how bad a President he would prove to be. Actually, though I predicted he'd be really bad and in way over his head, Obama has surprised me at just how awful he is. Obama's become, with amazing speed, the most incompetent President this nation has ever had to suffer through. He also seems to wanna be regarded as one of the most dishonest presidents in history.

It's going to be pretty comical to see how this disaster of a politician and his worshipful allies in the mainstream media try and get him re-elected.

[youtube]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VIA5aszzA18?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VIA5aszzA18?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]


But what's going on right now with Obama's "kinetic military action" in Libya is well beyond incompetence and dishonesty. What we're dealing with now is a president who is WILLFULLY violating the U.S. Constitution, and is doing so with utter contempt for Congress and the American people.

That it's willful is not a mere opinion. I'm sure all the suddenly-silent Obamatrons on this board must have come across candidate Obama's 2007 statement:

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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

-- Barry Obama, 2007

I'm also sure some of the oddly silent Obamatrons saw this clip from Joe Biden on the subject, where he says he'd lead the charge to impeach Bush if Bush attacked a country without congressional approval (Bush, of course, did seek and receive congressional approval for his military actions):

[youtube]<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Adpa5kYUhCA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Adpa5kYUhCA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]

So, we have an administration that is doing something THEY FULLY KNEW was unconstitutional.

Barack Obama spent weeks negotiating with the United Nations, the Arab League, NATO, etc., but he decided not to discuss the matter with the American people, and decided not to seek Congressional approval, or even allow Congress to have one single second of debate on the matter.

Instead, he filled out his NCAA college basketball brackets (Boy Wonder got the entire Final Four wrong) and jetted off to Brazil (to promote Brazilian oil drilling while opposing U.S. drilling), without a care in the world that he was doing what he damn well knew was a violation of the Constitution.

This is a stunningly lawless president.

 

[Theo]

Rand Paul was elected to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky as a Tea Party candidate in last November's elections.

Here's what he had to say on Obama's lawless action:

[youtube]<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eLY19PnY2m8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eLY19PnY2m8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]

It's nice to see that some folks in our government still believe in the Constitution.

(Needless to say, the worshipful Obamites in the mainstream media attempted to destroy Rand Paul and the rest of the Tea Party movement with smears of the lowest order. Anything to protect this disgusting joke of a President. I guess they think America needs more Obama-style change!)

 

[Theo]

Rand Paul was elected to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky as a Tea Party candidate in last November's elections.

Here's what he had to say on Obama's lawless action:

[youtube]<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eLY19PnY2m8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eLY19PnY2m8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]

It's nice to see that some folks in our government still believe in the Constitution.

More on this:

On Wednesday, Paul...attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”

To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “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.” According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”

GOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul’s proposal flummoxed [Senate Majority Leader] Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama’s dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure.

Republicans speculate that Reid was already irked, sensing disarray in his caucus over the McConnell-Inhofe amendment to block carbon regulation at the Environmental Protection Agency. Paul’s proposal simply added fuel to the docket fire. Senate Democrats who are up for reelection in 2012 are quite sensitive to tricky amendment votes, and Reid, some say, may have simply thrown up his hands. For Democrats, a weekend to sort things things out is more appealing than a tense Friday in the cloakroom.

“Paul’s Libya amendment has brought the Senate to a standstill because Reid doesn’t know how to handle it,” one GOP aide tells me. “If he allows a vote, Democrats are forced to either disagree with then-senator Obama or with President Obama. It’s possible that Reid just yanks the bill or files cloture, seems he may do anything to avoid a vote on Paul’s amendment.”

Yes, it would be interesting to see if Obama's supporters in the Senate support the CANDIDATE Barack Obama, or the hypocritical version that has become our President.

 

[Theo]

Here's Rep. Tom McClintock of California, with some hard-hitting words on this mess:

[youtube]<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gYPbQLqMdLk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gYPbQLqMdLk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Text version of McClintock's remarks can be found here: The Attack on Libya Crossed a Very Bright Constitutional Line

He notes:

The President has implied that he didn’t have time for Congressional authorization to avert a humanitarian disaster in Libya. He had plenty of time to get a resolution from the United Nations. I would remind him that just a day after the unprovoked bombing of Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt appeared in this very chamber to request and receive congressional authorization.

Well, you know, Obama had those NCAA college basketball brackets to fill out.....

 

[Theo]

I see some Obama voter just down-rated this thread from 5 stars to 3. Care to post why you find it an unworthy topic of discussion?

 

[Theo]

I see some Obama voter just down-rated this thread from 5 stars to 3. Care to post why you find it an unworthy topic of discussion?

Perhaps the Obamites who turned SoLow virtually into an Elect Obama (& Worship Him Too!) campaign web site are understandably quiet nowadays.

I wonder what their morals really are.

For example, I had enough care to express my disgust about Abu Ghraib while Bush was President. Of course I kept it in perspective, because I wasn't whipped up into anti-Bush hysteria. But it was terrible what happened there, highly news-worthy, and something Donald Rumsfeld and company deserved to take a lot of heat over.

Why is it that I don't see a single message or comment posted about the "kill teams" of rogue U.S. Army soldiers in Afghanistan who posed for photos with the corpses of civilians they had murdered?

Obviously such awful treatment of people is not representative of the vast majority of Americans in our military. But recall what a feeding frenzy the mainstream media had over the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, which was reflected in the postings on this board by those Obamites who wanted to present Bush as the second coming of Hitler.

 

[Theo]

But recall what a feeding frenzy the mainstream media had over the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, which was reflected in the postings on this board by those Obamites who wanted to present Bush as the second coming of Hitler.

It was such a feeding frenzy of anti-Bush hysteria that even Morrissey stuck his nose out of his cave to tell a radio station that this showed how America, under Bush, is the real terrorist state.

When is Morrissey gonna come out of his cave to tell us how he feels about these "kill team" incidents under the President he actively campaigned for? I guess he doesn't feel compelled to say anything this time, or to engage in more of his massive smearing of the United States in order to damage the current occupier of the White House. I guess it ain't as fasnhionable at the moment.

When are all the folks who had so much to say about how the incidents of abuse at Abu Ghraib proved that Donald Rumsfeld should be fired, Bush should be impeached, and America under Bush is the real terrorist state, going to even MENTION these far worse incidents under Obama even one single time?

These incidents under Obama involve civilians MURDERED and photographed as trophies by a rogue army "kill team", who also apparently hacked off body parts to use in poker games. Far worse than Abu Ghraib.

Obama, as a candidate, pledged that this sort of thing wouldn't occur under his watch.

I don't see the calls for the current Defense Secretary to be fired. I don't see many in the Democrat/Obama-friendly news media savaging Obama like they did to Bush. I barely see much coverage in the Democrat/Obama-friendly news media at all. (And when we're talking about the "Democrat/Obama-friendly news media, we're talking about nearly the ENTIRE mainstream news media.)

They couldn't write enough stories about Abu Grhaib, yet they're oddly reluctant to give these "kill teams" much coverage.

The news media only wants to cover it in the most minimalistic manner this time?!

Gee, I wonder why.

 

[Theo]

Gee, I wonder why.

And now their Boy Wonder violated the U.S. Consitution when he went to war with Libya without Congressional authorization. They'd certainly be calling for Bush's impeachment if Bush had ever done such a thing. Vice President Biden even said he'd lead the charge to impeach Bush!

Instead they're going on about how it's a big international coalition that Obama put together. Bush put together a BIGGER international coalition for Iraq AND he engaged with the people in a debate AND he sought and got Congressional authorization.

And BTW it's not just the rogue kill teams in Afghanistan that they don't wanna talk about after Obama assured everyone that no such abuses would occur under his watch. The Obama administration is currently holding a prisoner named Private Bradley Manning because he leaked some stuff to WikiLeaks. Apparently Manning is being abused and tortured in ways very similar to how prisoners were abused at Abu Ghraib. He's being held naked aroun the clock, and so on.

Because he passed some stuff to WikiLeaks. I dunno, didn't even seem like very damaging leaks to me. Far less damaging than all those leaks Democrat, and other anti-Bush elements in the government used to pass to the media to undermine Bush's foreign policy.

And, gee, don't we often see in the media where anonymous sources in the Obama adminstration leaked classified information to the press?

I dunno, better knock this thread down to one star. I've had my cathertic release for the weekend.

P.S. I don't know how I feel about what we're actually doing in Libya (seems like we had to do something), but the manner in which Obama went about putting us at war with Libya is despicable as well as unlawful.

 

[Theo]

P.S. I don't know how I feel about what we're actually doing in Libya (seems like we had to do something), but the manner in which Obama went about putting us at war with Libya is despicable as well as unlawful.

P.P.S. It's a good thing Libya got rid of their WMDs in the wake of America's toppling of Saddam Hussein. Qaddafi was pretty scared he'd be next. But it gets confusing now, with Obama. What if Iran takes Obama's war in Libya as a signal that that's what happens when you give up nukes and other WMD? "Look what happened to Colonel Qaddafi -- he gave up his weapons and America went to war with Libya!"

While Bush's toppling of the Baath regime in Iraq caused Qaddafi to want to get rid of Libya's nuclear program and other WMD, might not Obama's war in Libya (whatever the missions turns out to be -- is it to topple Qaddafi?) cause Iran's regime to be less likely to give up their nuclear program?

I dunno. We didn't have much of a debate in this country because Obama thought going to war was his sole decision to make, and he made that decision in Brazil while Congress was out of session.

 

[Theo]

The silence of the Obamites of SoLow is deafening.


Rand Paul "Obama's Going Directly Against The Constitution That Says Congress Shall Declare War"
[youtube]<object width="960" height="750"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VOM_5LWi2xU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VOM_5LWi2xU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="960" height="750"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Theo]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Be Tried by Military Commission at Guantánamo

I can't seem to find the threads where we were arguing about this on SoLow. I hope it's just a bug in the forum and that no one has censored things.

Anyway, basically I predicted this, and the usual suspects of SoLow attacked me for it. Most of those folks are long gone while I stand here vindicated again.

Jonh Woo:

"y announcing a reversal on their plans for civilian trials of terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, [the Obama administration is] implicitly confessing that their campaign attacks on the Bush administration were wrong...."

 

[not_me_not_I]

Hadn't looked at your thread before.
Last night I told a co-worker that Obama had finally pissed me off - and went off on a diatribe against him getting us involved in a situation that was none of our goddamn business, cost us money we don't have, put us in another war we don't need, and did it illegally to boot.

I'm with you on this one.

*furious*

 

[bored]

tl;dr

u mad bro?

 

[cornelius blaze]

Another Theo thread about Obama. Time to leave.

 

[I am a Ghost]

Another Theo thread about Obama. Time to leave.

 

[Ben Budd]

I like how you refer to him by using his full name, which includes a non-WASP sounding middle name. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion you're a massive racist.

Regards,

 

[Mmmmmm]

I agree completely with Theo. Obama - heck, let's just call him Hussein - has clearly violated not only the rights of peaceful overlords of the Libyan dictatorship, but he has done so in a manner that clearly steps on the rightful domain of the Republican party. What sort of president declares war against some despotic, oil-rich desert country? Can't Hussein think up his own plan for war without stealing from the Republicans?

He's not even competent enough to concoct elaborate lies to cover up his real motives! Impeach him for failing to deny the truth even when confronted with it!

Theo, you have accurately predicted that Hussein would usurp the political will of the American people and help out his true allies - his African brothers. He's failed to achieve the first and won't deny now that he is helping the so-called Libyan rebels.

Get rid of the bum and lets bring back a regime in America that can undermine democracy with bona fide disdain and contempt! None of this half measure, compromise and conciliation. That's just not the Republican way!

Theo Uber Alles!

 

[Emil]

I agree completely with Theo. Obama - heck, let's just call him Hussein - has clearly violated not only the rights of peaceful overlords of the Libyan dictatorship, but he has done so in a manner that clearly steps on the rightful domain of the Republican party. What sort of president declares war against some despotic, oil-rich desert country? Can't Hussein think up his own plan for war without stealing from the Republicans?

He's not even competent enough to concoct elaborate lies to cover up his real motives! Impeach him for failing to deny the truth even when confronted with it!

Theo, you have accurately predicted that Hussein would usurp the political will of the American people and help out his true allies - his African brothers. He's failed to achieve the first and won't deny now that he is helping the so-called Libyan rebels.

Get rid of the bum and lets bring back a regime in America that can undermine democracy with bona fide disdain and contempt! None of this half measure, compromise and conciliation. That's just not the Republican way!

Theo Uber Alles!

The best post I've ever read in this forum.

 

[Dave]

The problem is that Obama's actions were unconstitutional and we really can't afford a third war.

 

[Buzzetta]

The problem is that Obama's actions were unconstitutional and we really can't afford a third war.

There have been many instances where US President's have committed impeachable acts. Most notably Lincoln and Jackson come to mind by willfully disregarding Supreme Court decisions and orders. The predicament is one that Ford realized and addressed when he pardoned Nixon.

Here is the link to Ford's address:
http://watergate.info/ford/pardon.shtml