KUHNER: Obama’s impeachable war

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The Washington Times

6:39 p.m., Thursday, March 24, 2011

     President Obama has lost his legitimacy to remain in office. The Libyan war has exposed the administration’s lawlessness and rampant criminality. If Republicans and conservatives are serious about restoring constitutional government, they will demand that Mr. Obama be impeached.

     The war is going badly. The coalition is cracking; the strategic aims of the military intervention are not clear; Russia, China, India and Brazil oppose it; the Arab League is condemning the deaths of innocent Libyans caused by Operation Odyssey Dawn; and it appears that Moammar Gadhafi will succeed in clinging to power - defying the international community and humiliating the United States. Mr. Obama has called for Col. Gadhafi to step down. He has staked American prestige and power on helping bring about that end. The failure to achieve this will render America a paper tiger on the world stage. We will no longer be feared or respected.

     NATO forces launched air strikes in order to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. The goal: to prevent Col. Gadhafi’s forces from slaughtering civilians. As Gadhafi loyalists marched toward the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Mr. Obama decided to implement an American rescue mission. This mission, however, differs from previous ones in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo. The United States is not taking the lead; rather, it is following the French and British. America is no longer acting like a superpower but a poodle of Paris and London.

     Mr. Obama has engaged U.S. forces - risking precious blood and treasure - without a clear strategy for victory. He recklessly has allowed his country to be sucked into a conflict without a real national debate or consensus. His policy is shoddy, half-baked and irresponsible. It is amateur hour at the White House.

     The most disturbing aspect, however, is the intervention’s lack of constitutional and legal authority. It is an illegal war. The Constitution clearly stipulates that only Congress can authorize the use of military force. Unless American territory has been invaded or U.S. citizens have been directly attacked, the president must first ask for congressional approval before ordering any kind of military action. To do otherwise is to behave like a despot.

     That is why the Founding Fathers insisted that going to war could be sanctioned only by the people’s representatives. The most serious act of any state is to use military force - to demand that countrymen risk their lives on behalf of their nation. Hence, congressional input and approval is necessary as a fundamental check and balance against an imperial president.

     Mr. Obama claims he does not need congressional authority. His behavior reflects contempt for the rule of law and American democracy. His arbitrary will trumps legal restraints. Unless he is stopped and removed from office, we are a constitutional republic in name only.

     His blatant abuse of power is illegal, immoral and hypocritical. During the war in Iraq, then-Sen. Barack Obama criticized President George W. Bush for not asking Congress for a formal declaration of war. On Dec. 20, 2007, Mr. Obama said in a speech 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.”

     Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery - which makes no sense.

     Moreover, what “imminent threat” does Col. Gadhafi’s regime pose to the United States? None. He is a capricious killer who rightly is reviled by most of the Libyan people. Yet it is their war, not ours. America should use military force only to protect its vital national interests.

To read more:

Kucinich: Libya action 'impeachable'

     Tomorrow, another reason for impeachment from another democrat. ---lee

     President Barack Obama should be impeached for approving air strikes against Libya, Rep. Dennis Kucinich said in an interview Monday.
     “President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,” the liberal Ohio Democrat told Raw Story. “He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.” Several other members of Congress have also chastised the Obama administration for not doing enough to sell the intervention to Congress, let alone to the American people.
     Kucinich went a bit further in his Monday remarks than he did over the weekend when, as POLITICO reported, he questioned why the U.S. strikes weren’t impeachable offenses while on a Democratic Caucus conference call.
     Obama’s decision “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense,” though he conceded in the interview that he’s unsure whether Congress would move ahead on a trial. Kucinich wanted to impeach former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney for their roles in leading the United States into war in Iraq and for their oversight of the conduct of the war, but was blocked by Democratic leadership.
     “Now, it doesn’t necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him,” he said. “That’s a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.”

For more:

Ralph Nader: Impeach Obama for Libya, Crimes

from newsmax.com

Monday, 21 Mar 2011 08:57 PM

1digg

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is calling for President Barack Obama's impeachment, saying he is responsible for war crimes in the Middle East, The Hill reports.

In an interview with the anti-war group Democracy Now!, Nader said Obama was as much a war criminal as former President George W. Bush.

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes; and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader said.

"[Bush officials] were considered war criminals by many people. Now, Barack Obama is committing the same crimes," the former presidential candidate said. "In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, he is violating international law."

Read more on Newsmax.com: Ralph Nader: Impeach Obama for Libya, Crimes

Another Liberal Calls for Obama’s Impeachment

from reddogreport.com
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2011 9:48 AM

tags: Impeachment, President Obama, Ralph Nader

by Brian O'Connor

   ShareThis

|| Once pals, Barack Obama has now unleashed the might of the US militaty on Gaddafi. ||

Articles of Impeachment.

Once the darling of the anti-war crowd,

The left is quickly turning it’s back on Barack Obama.

Many liberals are now calling for the President’s impeachment.

Including progressive stalwart Ralph Nader.

The consumer advocate and former presidential candidate said in an interview that aired Friday that Obama has committed “war crimes” on the same level as President Bush.

“Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached,” Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.

Finally, something those on the left and right can agree upon.

to read original article and comments

The $4-Per-Gallon President

     Soon to be the $5-Per-Gallon or maybe $6-Per-Gallon President. But don't forget, our President has more important things to do: like taking in the sights of Rio and filling out the NCAA basketball brackets on ESPN. ------lee

by Sarah Palin on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 4:27pm

     Is it really any surprise that oil and gas prices are surging toward the record highs we saw in 2008 just prior to the economic collapse? Despite the President’s strange assertions in his press conference last week, his Administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

     The evidence of the President’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see. The following is not even an exhaustive list:

     Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?

     But that’s just the Gulf. There’s also the question of a moratorium on the development of Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It seems the Obama Administration can’t agree with itself on whether it imposed a moratorium there or not. The White House claims that they didn’t, but their own Department of the Interior let slip that they did. To clear up this mess, Gov. Parnell decided to sue the DOI to get a solid answer because such a federal OCS drilling moratorium would violate federal law.

     Exhibit B: His 2012 budget. The President used his 2012 budget to propose the elimination of several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. Eliminating these incentives will discourage energy companies from completing exploratory projects, resulting in higher energy costs for all Americans – and not just at the pump. According to one study mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, eliminating the deduction for drilling costs “could increase natural gas prices by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet,” which would translate to “an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices.”

     Exhibit C: His anti-drilling regulatory policies. The U.S. Geological Survey found that the area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, one third of which is in Alaskan territory. That’s our next Prudhoe Bay right there. According to one industry study, allowing Royal Dutch Shell to tap these reserves in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas would create an annual average of 54,700 jobs nationwide with a $145 billion total payroll and generate an additional $193 billion a year in total revenues to local, state, and federal governments for 50 years. This would be great news if only the federal government would allow Shell to drill there. But it won’t. It’s been five years since Shell purchased the lease to develop these fields, but it’s been mired in a regulatory funk courtesy of the Obama Administration. After investing $3.5 billion in exploration programs (a significant portion of which went to ensuring responsible spill response and prevention), Shell announced last month that it has given up hope of obtaining the required permits to conduct exploratory drilling this year. That means no jobs and no billions in oil revenue from the Arctic anytime soon thanks to this Administration. Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. Right now Beltway politicos are quibbling over cutting $61 billion from our dangerously bloated $3.7 trillion budget. Allowing drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas will enrich federal coffers by $167 billion a year without raising our taxes. If we let Harry Reid keep his “cowboy poetry,” would the White House consider letting us drill?

     Taken altogether, it’s hard to deny that the Obama Administration is anti-drilling. The President may try to suggest that the rise in oil prices has nothing to do with him, but the American people won’t be fooled. Before we saw any protests in the Middle East, increased global demand led to a significant rise in oil prices; but the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.

     This was no accident. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Let’s not forget that in September 2008, candidate Obama’s Energy Secretary in-waiting said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That’s one campaign promise they’re working hard to fulfill! Last week, the British Telegraph reported that the price of petrol in the UK hit £6 a gallon – which comes to about $9.70. If you think $4 a gallon is bad now, just wait till the next crisis causes oil prices to “necessarily” skyrocket. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now.

     Hitting the American people with higher gas prices like this is essentially a hidden tax and a transfer of wealth to foreign regimes who are providing us the energy we refuse to provide for ourselves. Like inflation, higher energy prices are a hidden tax on Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. And these high gas prices will be felt in the form of higher food prices due to higher transportation costs. Energy is connected to everything in our economy. Access to affordable and secure energy is key to economic growth, which in turn is key to job growth. Energy is the building block of our economy. The President is purposely weakening that building block and weakening our country.

2012 can’t come soon enough.

to read original article 

Dem Candidate Wants to Impeach Obama

I guess it had to come sooner or later---a democrat who wants Obama impeached. It's funny, I didn't see this story before the election.  -----lee

Sadly, Ms. Rogers did not win but managed to get 30% of the vote in a 3-way race against Republican Congressman Pete Olson and Libertarian Steven Susman.  She has already announce her plans to run in 2012.  True, she's associated with Lyndon LaRouche, but Obama's associated with George Soros, so it evens out.---rng

from time.com
June 20, 2010


 South Carolina's unexpected Democratic nominee for the US Senate, mystery man Alvin Greene, says he wants to play golf with Barack Obama. But in Texas, another surprise Democratic primary winner, congressional nominee Kesha Rogers, wants to impeach the President. So while South Carolina party officials are still unsure of what to do about Greene's success at the ballot box, Texas Democrats have no such reservations — they wasted little time in casting Rogers into exile and offering no support or recognition of her campaign to win what once was Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay's old seat.
     Rogers, 33, told TIME she is a "full time political activist" in the Lyndon LaRouche Youth Movement, a recruiting arm of the LaRouche political organization that is active on many college campuses. The LYM espouses LaRouche opposition to free trade and "globalism" (the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund) and it also calls for a return to a humanist classical education, emphasizing the works of Plato and Leibnitz. On her professional looking campaign website, kesharogers.com, she touts the LaRouche political philosophy — a mix of support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the impeachment of President Obama — and calls Obama a "London and Wall Street backed puppet" whose policies will destroy the Democratic Party. During the campaign, she was photographed carrying an oversized portrait of the President with a Hitler-style moustache penciled on his lip.

to read complete article























-candidate-wants-impeach-obama

How to Help Impeach a President as a Citizen

This is a group homework project for the month.
-----lee

Why let the politicians have all the fun?  This is your chance to make their lives miserable.  Enjoy.---rng

By an eHow Contributor


The Constitution of the United States provides recourse for citizens when the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Only the House of Representatives can impeach a President, after which it is up to the Senate to decide whether to convict a President and expel him from office. There are things you can do to help impeach a President as a citizen.

.Difficulty: Challenging

Instructions

1

Identify the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President. You need to be able to enumerate these crimes in order to convince others that impeachment is reasonable.

2

Contact your United States Representative and inform him that you believe the president is guilty of those crimes. Tell him that you believe the Constitution requires him to investigate the issue and determine whether the President should be impeached. You can find out who your Representative on the United States House of Representatives website.

3

Encourage others to contact their U.S. Representatives. You can do this through any number of means, including face-to-face conversations, phone calls, e-mails or even marketing campaigns such as radio ads or websites.

4

Start a petition drive in your U.S. House District to encourage your U.S. Representative to vote for impeachment.

5

Repeat steps 2 through 4 with your Senators, should the House of Representatives vote for impeachment. You can locate your senators at the United States Senate website.

to read original article