President Obama should be tried for treason
Ex-Generals Say President Obama Must be Forced to Resign
World Net Daily yesterday celebrated the idea that the time has come for the U.S. military to step in and force Obama to resign, a poll showing that 79 percent (822 votes) feel that the military should “Court martial our commander in chief for treason against our nation and its defense.”
And WND managed to do it without ever once mentioning that the whole idea of a military coup – which is what they’re talking about – is unconstitutional. Or that there is something inherently creepy and banana republic-like about ex-generals keeping an eye on a twice legally elected president:
After one of them called for the “forced resignations” of President Obama and congressional leaders in response to multiple grievances, including the alleged political purge of hundreds of senior military officers, two retired U.S. generals are creating a citizens’ commission to scrutinize Obama administration actions on national security and economic issues.
“America’s Provisional Leadership Council” will look at major concerns, as outlined by Army Gen. Paul E. Vallely and Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Jones, in an eight-point paper titled “The Americans Project.”
In calling for the forced resignations of Obama and the leadership of Congress, Vallely outlined suggestions for nationwide rallies and said a peaceful “civil uprising is still not out of question.”
You might be interested to know that Vallely, an Islamophobe, is senior military analyst for Fox News and that Jones, an apparently VERY angry old white man, wrote an open letter in support of birther Orly Taitz, claiming that the president was “possibly [a] citizen of Kenya.”
We are told that “In their paper, Vallely and Jones call for adherence to the Constitution with strict congressional oversight of all executive actions.”
What a great idea for saving our Constitution! Except…
NOTHING in the United States Constitution provides for using force to terminate a presidency. NOTHING. Yet the claim made here is that this would be done in order to protect the Constitution. Yes, protect the Constitution by violating it.
Interesting concept. Something that would make sense only to a tea party mind.
It’s kinda funny too, in a way, in that these generals are angry at Obama for “forcing resignations.” Did they forget their oath? Did they forget that the U.S. president is the “commander-in-chief”?
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States….
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1
Did they forget that the president was legally elected according to the Constitution and that neither a military coup nor leading a civilian uprising would not be in accord with the Constitution they swore to uphold?
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
This is Vallely back in 2010 telling a bunch of Republicans in Virginia City, Montana, about his plans:
Perhaps he doesn't remember the significance of the oaths he is talking about here? Is it possible he does not see that violating the Constitution does not protect the Constitution?
The current crop of leaders, he said, must face a “demand resignation” process, which he explained requires massive grassroots protests and social networking which he envisions can be undertaken through his organization. And example of a “forced resignation,” he said, was that of President Richard Nixon.
“Our federal government continues down the path of destroying America,” Vallely said. “Americans must now stand up and put America back on the right track.”
…
Vallely and Jones in their paper say “The Americans” leadership has developed workable solutions to “help solve and fix what has without question stunted our nation’s ability to clearly, legally and peacefully function as a constitutional republic.”
Never mind that Nixon – who, unlike Obama, actually did something wrong – was not forced to resign – he chose to resign rather than face impeachment.
Vallely, if he really cares about this country, should be pointing the finger at the tea party anarchists in the House of Representatives, at the Citizens United ruling, and at a host of other problems that can be laid at the door of Republican ideology and governance from 2001-2008.
Republicans really can’t get over the fact that Americans have rejected them – twice, and that their brief tea party resurgence in 2010 did not imply that President Obama relinquish his role as president to a small band of lunatics in the House of Representatives. It did not alter Democratic control of the Senate. The Constitution did not change in 2010 from what it was in 2008. Barack Obama is still the president of the United States. He was re-elected president of the United States by 5 million votes in 2012.
Recent elections and polls show support for the Republican and tea parties to be at an all-time low. Deadly diseases are more popular than the Republicans in Congress.
What part of this do you treasonous clowns not get?
You can stomp your little feet if you want, sure. You can rant and rave, which is something you have shown us all you love to do. But you don’t get to shut down the government because you don’t like how America voted. How is that patriotic – or constitutional? And you certainly don’t get to impeach the president simply because you don’t like him, and what in the world gives you the idea that the military can remove a legally elected president because you don’t like the results of an election?
Don’t even pretend that you are doing this for us. What you want has nothing to do with what polls and elections show the American people want. Don’t even pretend you are doing this to protect the Constitution. Neither is true.
You are conservative reactionaries. You are doing this for yourselves, because you don’t like the fact that we as a culture have moved on, that the American people are no longer interested in what you have to offer. You ran our country into the ground and we aren’t going to let you do it again.
Not on our watches. Government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. It is no more government of, by, and for the military than it is of, by and for the corporations or of, by, and for God.
If you don't like the results of the last election, win the next election if you can, a possibility that is daily – thanks to your own insane behavior and ideas and actions – becoming more remote.
→ Read more about Hrafnkell Haraldsson ←
The Middle East is at its boiling point. Syria is devastated by raging war. Israel threatens to deal with Iran once and for all -- with Washington towering over regional affairs. What is at the cornerstone of American foreign politics? With Iran and the US going through a diplomatic thaw, what game will Tel Aviv play? Today we look at these issues through the eyes of a member of the few, but one not proud: a former US marine Kenneth O'Keefe who burned his passport and became an anti-war activist.
The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their constitutional right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. The North ministry's solution was the Tea Act, which received the assent of King George on May 10, 1773.[26] This act restored the East India Company's full refund on the 25% duty for importing tea into Britain, and also permitted the company, for the first time, to export tea to the colonies on its own account. This would allow the company to reduce costs by eliminating the middlemen who bought the tea at wholesale auctions in London.
Instead of selling to middlemen, the company now appointed colonial merchants to receive the tea on consignment; the consignees would in turn sell the tea for a commission. In July 1773, tea consignees were selected in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Charleston.
The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their constitutional right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. The North ministry's solution was the Tea Act, which received the assent of King George on May 10, 1773.[26] This act restored the East India Company's full refund on the 25% duty for importing tea into Britain, and also permitted the company, for the first time, to export tea to the colonies on its own account. This would allow the company to reduce costs by eliminating the middlemen who bought the tea at wholesale auctions in London.
Instead of selling to middlemen, the company now appointed colonial merchants to receive the tea on consignment; the consignees would in turn sell the tea for a commission. In July 1773, tea consignees were selected in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Charleston.
No comments:
Post a Comment