Touted new 'impeach Obama' bill is nearly toothless
a V-USA opinion exclusive
by: Tom Kovach
a V-USA opinion exclusive
by: Tom Kovach
A bill was recently introduced in the US House of Representatives to define the use of "offensive military force", without a declaration by Congress, as an "impeachable offense".
House Concurrent Resolution 107, introduced on Wednesday, 07 March 2012 by US Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, has been touted by some Internet activists as a new "impeach Obama" bill.
But, examination of the text shows that it is merely an election-year ploy by the Republican Party to give them the appearance of strength -- but without any actual teeth in the bill.
But, examination of the text shows that it is merely an election-year ploy by the Republican Party to give them the appearance of strength -- but without any actual teeth in the bill.
Between the actual membership of Congress and their staffs, there is a high concentration of lawyers. People that have studied the law are familiar with the legal doctrine of "silence equals acquiescence". This means that, if one becomes "injured" in the legal sense, and if that one does not complain about it in a timely manner, then that one has given up his right to complain about it later. A good analogy is an old saying about trying to close the barn door after the horse is gone. Congressman Jones' bill is an excellent example of that saying. The Republican Party has ignored many "impeachable offense" by the Obama regime, yet now purports a desire to close the barn door.
Apparently, not even Congressman Jones believes that his bill has teeth. There is no mention of this "dramatic" bill in the "recent news" section of his own official Web site.
If the bill were really an "impeach Obama" bill, then wouldn't it be in the center section -- instead of a photo of a gasoline pump?
If the bill were really an "impeach Obama" bill, then wouldn't it be in the center section -- instead of a photo of a gasoline pump?
Using the above analogy, the barn is the Oval Office, and Rep. Jones is purportedly trying to use the Constitution as the barn door. But, in reality, the "horse" is not Obama. The real horse is the "rule of law, rather than of men". The Republican Party has had three years to impeach Obama for numerous blatant offenses. They have not done so. Yet, now, in an election year, they try to give voters the appearance that they are planning to impeach Obama. (When?? After the election?! And, only if they win?)
Dig a little deeper.
After campaigning against "Bush's war" in Afghanistan, the Obama regime expanded the number of troops there. Having already punished the Taliban for alleged involvement in the "9-11" attacks, was there any Constitutional authority for our continued military presence there? "Nation building" is not a Constitutional basis for military action. (And, no matter how hard we try, we cannot re-mold a Muslim nation into a constitutional republic with long-lasting American values. The closest that we ever came was Iran, under Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The result was that country's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which has been a thorn in our side ever since.) The Republican Party did not impeach Obama when he expanded US involvement in Afghanistan. The Republican Party did not impeach Obama for giving our enemies an advance deadline for our troop withdrawal from Iraq. (If any line soldier had done the same, it could've been court-martialed for an act of treason.)
Our troops have been posted in Haiti ever since Bill Clinton used our might to overthrow Maurice Duvalier and then prop up Communist dictator Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Despite having a majority in Congress after the 1994 elections, the Republican Party did nothing to stop that un-Constitutional use of American military power. After taking the Oval Office for eight years, neither did Republican president George W. Bush -- even though he had a Republican majority in Congress during part of his two terms. Didn't our assistance of a "regime change" in Haiti constitute a use of "offensive military power" without an authorization by Congress? Yet, the Republican Party did nothing to stop it at that time, nor since.
Also during the 1990s, Bill Clinton got our country's troops into a three-sided religious war. He did so under the guise of stopping "ethnic cleansing". That was a lie, and the media repeated it for him often. Serbs, Croatians and Bosnians are all of the same ethnic stock. (They are known as "South Slavs", and they speak essentially the same language.) The difference is that Serbs are primarily Orthodox Christians, Croatians are primarily Roman Catholic Christians, and the Bosnians are primarily Muslims. So, the Clinton regime used American troops to support the only side that is not Christian. And, there was no clear American national interest in the Balkan War. (Those factions have been fighting each other for a thousand years. Hence, the word "balkanize".) Although it was very noble of our troops to intervene to stop violence, the larger historical fact is that violence is part of the fabric of that region. The Republican Party did nothing to stop the spilling of American blood in the Balkans, even though there was no declaration of war in that action, either.
But, that's "old news", right?
Last year, the Obama regime sent American troops into Libya to help the revolutionaries of the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi. At first, Obama said that there would be no American combat troops inside Libya; our only role would be offshore "support" (such as naval hospitals) to NATO troops that did the actual invasion. But, before long, our Special Operations Forces were deep inside Libya. Specifically, US Air Force Combat Controllers were on the ground, providing targeting information for airstrikes -- some of which were done by American fighter jets. There was no outcry from the Republican Party -- despite the fact that Obama used our "offensive military power" to help overthrow the government of another sovereign nation. (The fact that we "didn't like" Qaddafi, nor the fact that Obama called it a "kinetic action" instead of a "war", nor the fact that he called it "defending" the local "freedom fighters" of the Muslim Brotherhood still cannot change the reality that America invaded another country and destroyed its government -- all without a declaration of war by Congress.) The Republican Party did nothing to stop Obama at that time, either.
Ah, but that was not an election year.
By contrast, the leaders of America's Party believe that our Constitution matters all the time ... all of it. The leaders of the Republican Party seem to think that the part about only a "natural-born citizen" occupying the Oval Office doesn't matter anymore. (Despite having many good qualities, Sen. Marco Rubio does not meet the definition of a "natural-born citizen". Thus, he is not qualified to run as vice-president. That does not seem to matter to Republican Party political strategists.) If you are a member of America's military, or a military veteran, or a military family member, then would you want someone that is not qualified occupying the job of commander-in-chief?
Do you want someone sitting in Congress that thinks the Constitution only matters in an election year? Or, that the Constitution only matters when "the other party*" occupies the Oval Office? (*Members of the Big Two parties routinely ignore the fact that there are eight political parties currently recognized at the national level, plus dozens of others at the state and local levels.) Wouldn't you prefer to have leaders that have stood up for the Constitution long before it was their paid job?
America's Party presidential candidate Tom Hoefling has been involved in politics for more than 25 years. He worked closely for ten years with Ambassador Alan Keyes. Hoefling is the father of a soldier that recently returned from Afghanistan. The AP vice-presidential candidate, J.D. Ellis, is a Christian minister. Both men have a record of standing up for truth and principle. Our principles matter, and they are key to the survival of this country. Principles are not merely a backdrop for election-year ploys.
Ask yourself this question: if you settle for something other than America's Party when you vote, will our Constitution matter next year?
Dig a little deeper.
After campaigning against "Bush's war" in Afghanistan, the Obama regime expanded the number of troops there. Having already punished the Taliban for alleged involvement in the "9-11" attacks, was there any Constitutional authority for our continued military presence there? "Nation building" is not a Constitutional basis for military action. (And, no matter how hard we try, we cannot re-mold a Muslim nation into a constitutional republic with long-lasting American values. The closest that we ever came was Iran, under Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The result was that country's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which has been a thorn in our side ever since.) The Republican Party did not impeach Obama when he expanded US involvement in Afghanistan. The Republican Party did not impeach Obama for giving our enemies an advance deadline for our troop withdrawal from Iraq. (If any line soldier had done the same, it could've been court-martialed for an act of treason.)
Our troops have been posted in Haiti ever since Bill Clinton used our might to overthrow Maurice Duvalier and then prop up Communist dictator Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Despite having a majority in Congress after the 1994 elections, the Republican Party did nothing to stop that un-Constitutional use of American military power. After taking the Oval Office for eight years, neither did Republican president George W. Bush -- even though he had a Republican majority in Congress during part of his two terms. Didn't our assistance of a "regime change" in Haiti constitute a use of "offensive military power" without an authorization by Congress? Yet, the Republican Party did nothing to stop it at that time, nor since.
Also during the 1990s, Bill Clinton got our country's troops into a three-sided religious war. He did so under the guise of stopping "ethnic cleansing". That was a lie, and the media repeated it for him often. Serbs, Croatians and Bosnians are all of the same ethnic stock. (They are known as "South Slavs", and they speak essentially the same language.) The difference is that Serbs are primarily Orthodox Christians, Croatians are primarily Roman Catholic Christians, and the Bosnians are primarily Muslims. So, the Clinton regime used American troops to support the only side that is not Christian. And, there was no clear American national interest in the Balkan War. (Those factions have been fighting each other for a thousand years. Hence, the word "balkanize".) Although it was very noble of our troops to intervene to stop violence, the larger historical fact is that violence is part of the fabric of that region. The Republican Party did nothing to stop the spilling of American blood in the Balkans, even though there was no declaration of war in that action, either.
But, that's "old news", right?
Last year, the Obama regime sent American troops into Libya to help the revolutionaries of the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi. At first, Obama said that there would be no American combat troops inside Libya; our only role would be offshore "support" (such as naval hospitals) to NATO troops that did the actual invasion. But, before long, our Special Operations Forces were deep inside Libya. Specifically, US Air Force Combat Controllers were on the ground, providing targeting information for airstrikes -- some of which were done by American fighter jets. There was no outcry from the Republican Party -- despite the fact that Obama used our "offensive military power" to help overthrow the government of another sovereign nation. (The fact that we "didn't like" Qaddafi, nor the fact that Obama called it a "kinetic action" instead of a "war", nor the fact that he called it "defending" the local "freedom fighters" of the Muslim Brotherhood still cannot change the reality that America invaded another country and destroyed its government -- all without a declaration of war by Congress.) The Republican Party did nothing to stop Obama at that time, either.
Ah, but that was not an election year.
By contrast, the leaders of America's Party believe that our Constitution matters all the time ... all of it. The leaders of the Republican Party seem to think that the part about only a "natural-born citizen" occupying the Oval Office doesn't matter anymore. (Despite having many good qualities, Sen. Marco Rubio does not meet the definition of a "natural-born citizen". Thus, he is not qualified to run as vice-president. That does not seem to matter to Republican Party political strategists.) If you are a member of America's military, or a military veteran, or a military family member, then would you want someone that is not qualified occupying the job of commander-in-chief?
Do you want someone sitting in Congress that thinks the Constitution only matters in an election year? Or, that the Constitution only matters when "the other party*" occupies the Oval Office? (*Members of the Big Two parties routinely ignore the fact that there are eight political parties currently recognized at the national level, plus dozens of others at the state and local levels.) Wouldn't you prefer to have leaders that have stood up for the Constitution long before it was their paid job?
America's Party presidential candidate Tom Hoefling has been involved in politics for more than 25 years. He worked closely for ten years with Ambassador Alan Keyes. Hoefling is the father of a soldier that recently returned from Afghanistan. The AP vice-presidential candidate, J.D. Ellis, is a Christian minister. Both men have a record of standing up for truth and principle. Our principles matter, and they are key to the survival of this country. Principles are not merely a backdrop for election-year ploys.
Ask yourself this question: if you settle for something other than America's Party when you vote, will our Constitution matter next year?
Tom Kovach (rhymes with "watch") lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written four books plus columns for several online publications. Tom is an inventor, a horse wrangler, a certified paralegal, and former network talk-show host. He has also run for Congress, and is the national chairman of Veterans United to Save America (V-USA). To learn more, click: www.TomKovach.US.
RSS Feed
