- Text smaller
- Text bigger
An unscientific poll today revealed that nearly 9 in 10 respondents say it’s time now to move on impeachment proceedings for Barack Obama.
The WND poll revealed that of nearly 10,000 votes by this evening, only handsful picked negative responses to the question, “Is it a smart idea to pursue impeachment of Obama now?”
The biggest individual number, 28 percent, would link the action now to the dispute over his eligibility, and questions whether he is qualified to hold the office of president. That segment, numbering nearly 2,600 votes, said, “Yes, if not for his military use, then for his other high crimes, such as not being eligible, his phony birth certificate, and fake Social Security number.”
Other categories with “yes” answers totaled another 60-some percent. Included were “Yes” at nearly 15 percent, “Yes, it’s’ way past time,” at 13 percent, “Yes, or else America is done for” at 11 percent, “Yes, but only if concrete, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence is assured” at 9 percent, “Yes, it will at least publicize to Americans his crimes before the election” at nearly 7 percent, “Yes, it’s a good idea to at least lay the groundwork for whatever his next offense is” at nearly 4 percent.
Several other yes votes got a fraction of a percent.
Those responding no congregated around the “No, the Senate would never convict him, so it’s a waste of time and energy answer.” It had 3 percent of the votes. “No, this is just politics by desperate Republicans” got 1 percent and “No, if they didn’t impeach Bush for unauthorized use of military, they sure shouldn’t Obama” also got 1 percent. Several other “No” votes also got a fraction of a percent.
The latest move in the impeachment sweepstakes came when Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress”
that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Also, in an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”
In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “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, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”
“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
“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.”
It is, however, long from the first mention of impeachment. Earlier, WND reported when William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, called for the action.
“By arming drug and human smugglers with assault weapons that have been used to kill American and Mexican citizens and police forces, and by ordering amnesty for illegal aliens which has been rejected by both the Congress and the American public more than eight times, Obama has committed a form of treason against the United States and must be removed from office by Congress,” he said.
The president “made it clear to the American public that he does not care what they think, what the current federal laws are, what the U.S. Constitution says, or what Congress has ratified,” he said. “Congress must take immediate action to stop Obama or the American Republic will fall. What use are elections, candidates, or the Congress, if the executive branch rules by decree?”
Interestingly, it was Joseph Biden, now vice president, who said as a presidential candidate in 2007, “A president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war … unless we’re attacked or there is proof we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him.”
“From what has already occurred, the offenses of the ‘mullah in chief’ are ‘already’ so compelling as to warrant immediate impeachment and conviction for his high crimes and misdemeanors, before the United States is totally destroyed by him,” he wrote.
The first statement from a member of Congress on the issue came from U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who responded to this question from Think Progress: “I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don’t reverse course [regarding trials for terror suspects] here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?”
Franks replied: “If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts.”
WND also has reported that Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, before the 2010 election, predicted that the House would impeach Obama with a majority in the House, but he wouldn’t be removed from office because that would demand 67 votes in the Senate.
“Hear me now and believe me later. … They won’t do it right away. And they won’t succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office,” Chait wrote.
WND also reported when Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, who served in Vietnam and commanded the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground during his long military career, said Congress should simply hand Obama an ultimatum.
“Action should be taken by the Senate and should be taken by the House,” he said. “They should serve notice on him and say, ‘Mr. President, we love you but we want to tell you something. You’re under a cloud of suspicion. We can’t continue running this country with you in charge under this cloud. Now either you clear it up or you resign from office.'”
He was answering questions on Stan Solomon’s “Talk to Solomon” show.
Further, retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a noted military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites, earlier told WND he believed Obama should resign.
Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said, “We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro (aka President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution.
“We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government,” he has warned.
Peter Ferrara, on the American Spectator website, also has predicted Obama’s resignation.
“I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it [to 2012],” he wrote. “I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012,” Ferrera said.
Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote, “President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.”
Kuhner continued, “He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela’s leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are balkanizing the country. It’s time for him to go.”
And at the Taking America Back 2010 conference in Miami in September, Floyd Brown expanded on the idea.
Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, said, “The Obama presidency is a disease. … Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment clause of the Constitution) is the cure. And it’s Obama’s hatred of America that makes it absolutely imperative that we take action now.
“Barack Hussein Obama is not some do-gooder that has had his plans go astray,” Brown added. “He is not a person of good will just trying his best to make America go the right direction. He is not. Barack Hussein Obama is a liar that absolutely knows what he’s doing to the United States of America. He has a plan. He has an agenda. This man knows exactly where he’s taking us.”