The Uncredible Impeachable President

In the Bergdahl Case, Obama Again Rips Up Constitution

Section Eight of Article One of the U.S. Constitution, in enumerating the powers of Congress, states explictly that they include the powers “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” That is yet another portion of the Constitution that former constitutional law prof Obama has chosen to shred, by the regime’s arranging the release of Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, behind the back of the U.S. Congress.

Last Dec. 26, Obama signed the FY14 National Defense Authorization Act, which had been passed by Congress. Section 1035(d) of that act says that the Executive must give Congress at least 30 days notice of its intent to release prisoners before doing so. Yet not even House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers nor Senate Committee chair Dianne Feinstein were given any advance notice. In fact, Rogers said, the last time the administration met with Congress on Bergdahl, in 2011, its idea for a prisoner swap was met with opposition from both parties in both chambers. “They pitched that at the time as a confidence-builder into negotiating a peace agreement,” Rogers told CNN. “And so, clearly, that doesn’t jibe with what they’ve just been saying.”
Signing His Own Fate

At the time that Obama signed the FY14 NDAA, he also crafted a “signing statement”—which is nowhere provided for in the Constitution.In the statement, Obama wrote, “For the past several years, the Congress has enacted unwarranted and burdensome restrictions that have impeded my ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo. Earlier this year I again called upon the Congress to lift these restrictions and, in this bill, the Congress has taken a positive step in that direction. Section 1035 of this Act gives the Administration additional flexibility to transfer detainees abroad by easing rigid restrictions that have hindered negotiations with foreign countries and interfered with executive branch determinations about how and where to transfer detainees. Section 1035 does not, however, eliminate all of the unwarranted limitations on foreign transfers and, in certain circumstances, would violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. Of course, even in the absence of any statutory restrictions, my Administration would transfer a detainee only if the threat the detainee may pose can be sufficiently mitigated and only when consistent with our humane treatment policy. Section 1035 nevertheless represents an improvement over current law and is a welcome step toward closing the facility.”

Or, as National Security Council spokesman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement today, “The administration determined that the notification requirement should be construed not to apply to this unique set of circumstances…” Translation: “Tear up the Constitution.”

In December 2007, in response to a Boston Globe questionnaire, candidate Obama wrote, “I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.” As President, Obama has issued close to 30 signing statements; in the 2013 Defense Authorization Act alone, he challenged more than 20 sections of the law.

House and Senate Rejected Taliban/Bergdahl Swap — in 2011!

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has exposed the fact that Congress had specifically rejected — in 2011 — the idea of a POW/Taliban prisoners swap involving Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. The rejection came after the Congress had carefully considered the details that were presented to the relevant committees.

“There were very strong views and they were virtually unanimous against the trade,” Feinstein said, according to The Hill, June 3rd. In an article that shows that the 2011 rejection of the POW/Taliban swap was bi-partisan, The Hill reported:

“Feinstein also said leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence panels were almost unanimously against a prisoner trade when it came up in 2011.

“She said the chairmen and ranking Republicans of the connected committees spent a lot of time in 2011 reviewing the possibility of a prisoner swap and came out firmly opposed to releasing senior militants from … Guantanamo Bay.”
Further Incrimination

And Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) says that the White House knew that the Congress opposed the deal, because Congress had told the White House and Administration officials, “no.” In a June 3rd statement posted on his Speaker of the House website, Boehner said:”More than two years ago, Members of Congress were briefed on the possibility of such an exchange, and the chairmen at the time and I raised serious questions to the administration. Unfortunately, the questions and concerns we had were never satisfactorily answered and they remain today. At the time, the administration deferred further engagement because the prospects of the exchange had diminished. The administration provided assurances, publicly reiterated by the White House in June 2013, that its engagement with Congress would resume if the prospects for an exchange became credible again. The briefings in late 2011 and January 2012 were highly compartmented to ensure the safety of Sergeant Bergdahl and to preserve space for diplomatic negotiations. While press reports at the time citing administration sources revealed that the White House was considering this prisoner exchange, Congress kept the serious ongoing policy and ethical discussion with the administration private. There was every expectation that the administration would re-engage with Congress, as it did before, and the only reason it did not is because the administration knew it faced serious and sober bipartisan concern and opposition.

“The administration has invited serious questions into how this exchange went down and the calculations the White House and relevant agencies made in moving forward without consulting Congress despite assurances it would re-engage with members on both sides of the aisle.”

Boehner said he supports the call by Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) to hold hearings on the swap. In a statement to MSNBC, McKeon said, “My perception is that he (Obama) broke the law” by not informing Congress 30 days in advance as required by the law the President signed.

Not only did President Obama commit an impeachable offense by failing to notify Congress 30 days in advance. He issued a signing statement when he signed the bill into law, announcing that he had no intention of complying. As one senior intelligence official commented, “A signing statement is nothing more than a presidential opinion. A signed law is the law. Obama broke the law.”

Obama Adopts Schellnhuber Depopulation Plan

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) issued its “Clean Power Plan” assault on coal yesterday, which dictates that states must produce schemes by 2016, to drastically cut carbon emissions from power plants overall by 30% (from 2005 levels), which is an exercise in madness according to the June, 2013, Obama decree, titled, “The President’s Climate Action Plan.” That document stated, “President Obama is putting forward a broad-based plan to cut the carbon pollution that causes climate change and affects public health.” Prior to this week’s anti-coal salvo, there were other Obama announcements, such as the March, anti-methane hit on livestock production.

This constitutes a “bail-in” expropriation of the very means of existence of the nation—power, food, fuel, water.
Opposition

A great geschrei of opposition has arisen from the coal states. Kentucky and West Virginia, for example, are over 90% dependent on coal for their electricity. Over 20 other states are dependent for over 50%. But so far, objectors are undershooting, and confining their objections to such quibbles as, how “unfair” the EPA is; how jobs will be lost; how China burns far more coal than the U.S. True, but only the most teensy, partial truth.The big truth is that the new “Clean Power Plan,” and its 2013 parent, “The President’s Climate Action Plan” are being conducted as de-carbonizing ruses for the purpose of powering down the U.S., to kill off the nation and its people. This is evil, foreign subversion.

Recall Hans Joachim Schellnhuber—the fascist greenoid who led the international charge against “carbon pollution” in the countdown to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change event and thereafter. Schellnhuber, trained as a “mathematical physicist,” did the math on how carbon emissions heat up the Earth. His conclusion: The Earth has a carrying capacity for only one billion people! Fossil fuels and human activity must be downscaled, to provide “stability” (as in the peace of the graveyard). Schellnhuber is a close collaborator of John P. Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, and backer of drastic populaton reduction. Schellnhuber’s base of operations is the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, where in 2011, statesman Helga Zepp LaRouche initiated an international resolution to condemn him.

The Obama “Climate Action Plan” is applied as if by Schellnhuber. All the new “Clean Power Plan” rhetoric about cleaning the air, and aiding asthmatics is bunk.

Internationally, Obama has obeyed London orders and deployed the U.S. fully on the Schellnhuber track. There was the 2009 Copenhagen Conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, at which C02 targets for reduction were set; then came the 2011, year-end climate meeting in Durban. The President’s Climate Action Plan stated last year: “Countries agreed to negotiate a new agreement by the end of 2015 that would have equal legal force and be applicable to all countries in the period after 2020. This was an important step beyond the previous legal agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, whose core obligations applied to developed countries, not to China, India, Brazil or other emerging countries…”

Lawmakers from West Virginia are among the most vocal and unison voices against Obama, but pussy footing. Rep. Nick Rahal (D) charged this week that the EPA is “overzealous;” the President and his policies are “basically picking winners and losers;” the EPA “is truly run amok.” Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) said, “West Virginia is on the losing end” of fairness.

Yesterday, Obama’s EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy spat out the Schellnhuber script, that it’s a done deal that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. “It’s been challenged again and again; and upheld again and again. It’s settled. C02 pollutes.”

Obama, in Poland, Threatens Russia Again

Obama arrived in Poland, today, just as NATO’s defense ministers meeting was getting underway in Brussels, and in time for the 25th anniversary of Poland’s first democratic elections, during which he will meet with other eastern European leaders, among them Ukrainian President-elect Petro Poroshenko. Upon arrival, Obama and Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski reviewed U.S. and Polish F-16’s lined up for the occasion at the airport in Warsaw, and then Obama issued a new threat against Russia.

He said:”We have prepared economic costs on Russia that can escalate if we continue to see Russia actively destabilizing one of its neighbors…Mr. Putin has a choice to make.” Komorowski fully agreed, saying that certain countries to the east of NATO are dealing with Russian aggression once again. “A few years ago, it was Georgia; now, it is Ukraine, with a special focus on Crimea,” he said.

Obama Wants a Billion Dollars More for US Forces in Europe

President Obama, after getting off his plane in Poland and reviewing US and Polish F-16’s, announced that he wants Congress to fund a new “European Reassurance Initiative,” to pay for increased U.S. military deployments to eastern Europe. The cost of “reassuring” NATO members in Eastern Europe as well as non-NATO members Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova that we’ll defend them against an “aggressive” Russia, is to be $1 billion in fiscal year 2015. Obama declared that European security is the “cornerstone of our own security, and it is sacrosanct,” and, he said with the F-16’s arrayed behind him, “It is a commitment that is particularly important at this time.” He then cynically claimed that the troop buildup in Eastern Europe was not meant to threaten Russia, but “rebuilding trust may take some time.”
Pivot

According to a fact sheet posted on the White House website, the $1 billion will pay for increased exercises, training, and rotational presence across Europe but especially in eastern Europe; additional U.S. planners in NATO member countries to increase the capability to plan for more exercises; pre-positioning of military equipment and infrastructure upgrades; increased U.S. naval deployments to the Baltic and Black Seas; and for “build[ing] the partner capacity of close friends such as Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine so they can better work alongside the United States and NATO, as well as provide for their own defense.”The fact sheet says: “In addition to this initiative, we are reviewing our force presence in Europe in light of the new security challenges on the continent…These efforts will not come at the expense of other defense priorities, such as our commitment to the Asia Pacific rebalance.”

In other words, this latest “Poland Pivot” of Obama’s will not get in the way of the equally provocative “Asia Pivot.”

This entry was posted in Green Agenda, Impeach Obama and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.