Obama's Troubles Grow:
Will Impeachment Follow?
by Nancy Spannaus
Feb. 12—The process of institutional pressure against President Barack Obama's ripping up of the U.S. Constitution, which has been advancing visibly since the Jan. 25 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on his violation of the separation of powers,[1] took another huge step forward this week. During the course of the Senate confirmation hearings on Obama's nominee for CIA Director, and a hearing on the Benghazi killings, which had been mandated by Senators threatening to hold up the confirmation of Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense, Members of the Senate raised significant questions about Obama's anti-Constitutional role with respect to drone warfare, and the Benghazi murders.
Obama is now faced with bipartisan opposition to his assertion of dictatorial powers, at a point where the Federal courts have also weighed in against his increasing intention to rule by Executive order. While the immediate points at issue appear to be about the confirmations, the actual target of the uproar is the President himself.
Lyndon LaRouche and his movement have asserted, beginning in April 2009, that Barack Obama's character, which puts him in the tradition of the Emperor Nero and Adolf Hitler, has qualified him as a danger to the very existence of the nation, which must be contained or removed by impeachment. In February 2010, immediately following Obama's stated intention to eviscerate NASA, LaRouche demanded impeachment, or forced resignation, of a President who was clearly on a path, forged by his British imperialist controllers, to destroy the nation.
Since that time, Obama's actions have more than proven LaRouche correct. The President's insistence on a Hitler-style health program to cast aside "useless eaters," his unconstitutional war against Libya, his assertion of the right to kill even American citizens by secret criteria known to himself alone—all these policies and more have demonstrated to the world at large, and now even to Members of Congress, that he is determined to rip up the Constitution, when it gets in the way of asserting his British-made agenda.
In the Summer of 2011, when ten U.S. Representatives, from both parties, went to Federal court to challenge Obama's unconstitutional decision to go to war in Libya, without first consulting the Congress, as the Constitution requires, the Federal courts threw out the case, claiming lack of jurisdiction. Congress, which still had the power to act, refused to do so. But on Jan. 25 of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, put the Congress to shame, when it held that Obama's recess appointments were in violation of the Constitution, and asserted the power and the obligation of the judiciary to overturn an unconstitutional action by the President. That put the President on notice.
Now, Congress has been stirred to act. Obama is being confronted by the Congress's right, and its responsibility, to conduct oversight of the Executive branch, and the Senate's power to grant or withhold its "advice and consent" on Cabinet appointments. The hearings held Feb. 7, on Benghazi and the Brennan nomination, were a first step.
LaRouche Demands Full Probe
On the day after those hearings, Feb. 8, LaRouche called upon the Congress to uphold its responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution by conducting a full, no-holds-barred probe into the Obama Administration's policy of extra-judicial assassinations, including of American citizens. He also demanded a full and unfettered investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack and its aftermath.
"After yesterday's hearings in the United States Senate, it is now absolutely clear that the Obama White House is still covering up their illegal assassinations program by refusing to comply with Congressional demands for full disclosure of the secret memos and correspondences that established and protected this kill policy. I fully agree with Sen. Ron Wyden and others on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who insisted that President Obama come clean on what clearly is a gross violation of the Constitutional guarantees of due process."
LaRouche continued,
"Furthermore, on the basis of testimony by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, it is also clear that President Obama must be forced to deliver a full accounting of his actions on Sept. 11, 2012, and in the days that followed the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American officials were killed. Until and unless we get to the bottom of this tragedy, we will be unable to credibly protect our American diplomats abroad."
During their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey acknowledged that, after an initial short briefing, there was no communication from the President as the attack in Benghazi was unfolding. Although State Department cables from the Embassy in Tripoli clearly described the attack on the mission as a heavily armed terrorist assault, and even identified Ansar al-Sharia as the organization behind the attacks, President Obama and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice persisted for weeks in describing the incident as a spontaneous protest against a video defaming Islam.
LaRouche concluded:
"Congress has a powerful responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to thoroughly probe the Executive branch behavior, particularly when there are clear indications of unconstitutional actions. Congress was given powerful tools, including subpoena power, and, ultimately, impeachment. Congress cannot allow the President to cover up what look to be serious crimes, which go far beyond the crimes that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation under threat of impeachment.
"We have reached a moment of truth, and I call on all Members of Congress to uphold their pledge to defend the Constitution. Only a thorough, open, and competent Congressional inquiry into the Obama assassination policy, and the Benghazi tragedy, can get at the truth that the American people so richly deserve."
[1] Cf. Noel Canning v. NLRB, No. 12-1115, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Jan. 25, 2013.
