Once again, the conservative movement is trying to play catch-up to this website. First, this author discovered that Barack Obama hauled Arizona before the United Nations over its immigration law. Some big media outlets eventually caught up — albeit without giving a shred of credit. Then they took notice of our expose that Obama considers Card Check an inalienable human right. The conservative media began to pick up on Obama’s decision to end-run the Constitution months after this author wrote multiple articles revealing Obama’s plan to rule by executive fiat in 2011.
Advertisement-content continues below
Now, conservatives are getting a glimmer that perhaps there is something a wee bit unacceptable about Obama’s war-by-decree on Libya. Steadfast conservatives have opposed the war from its inception, but the president’s blatant defiance of the War Powers Resolution has swelled the number of those enlisted to fight for the Constitution.
Eugene Windchy wrote in Tuesday’s edition of The Washington Times it may be time to impeach Barack Obama over his unconstitutional adventure in northern Africa.
Windchy begins with a necessary examination of the falsified history neo-fascists use to justify a president’s “right” to initiate war:
Our second president, John Adams, not only acknowledged Congress‘ right to “declare” war as stated in the Constitution, but assumed that the Congress‘ authority included undeclared war. In 1798, Adams obtained from Congress an authorization to attack French privateers off the Atlantic coast. Later in the same year, Congress authorized attack on French privateers wherever they might be found. The resulting 1798-1800 undeclared naval conflict historians call the “Quasi-War.”
Yet in 1966, the State Department listed the Quasi-War as not having been authorized by the legislative branch…
In 1801 and 1802, Congress authorized President Thomas Jefferson to attack the Barbary pirates…
In 1806, according to the State Department, the U.S. Navy repelled French and Spanish privateers without congressional permission. However, the department’s source of information was Dudley Knox’s A History of the U.S. Navy, and it says that the “privateers” actually were ordinary pirates falsely showing the flags of France and Spain…
Egregiously, the State Department has cited Commodore T.A.C. Jones’ 1842 landing in Mexico as a significant military action. The commodore landed in error, thinking war had begun. Discovering peace, he withdrew.
A similar list of such “proofs” can be found in Richard F. Grimmett’s “Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2008,” a virtually comprehensive list of military incursions overseas. This author examined them and came to similar conclusions:
Advertisement-content continues below
[T]he overwhelming majority…are instant retaliation for some attack upon American citizens. Instances of attack without congressional authorization are underwhelming. Grimmett’s list includes, e.g., an instance in 1831-2 in which a captain “investigated the capture of three American sealing vessels.” That’s it. Investigated. Another case is Commodore David Porter 1824 attack upon a Puerto Rican town, following which he “was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers.”
Apparently, even instances worthy of the brig “prove” the acceptability of ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s clear wording on which branch of government possesses war-making powers.
What is the proper remedy when a power-mad executive seizes vital powers the Founding Fathers vested solely with Congress under our Constitution? Windchy went on to prove his analysis is as good as his history. He asked:
How can Congress win back its control of the war power?
Impeachment comes to mind. Vice President Joseph R. Biden, when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned President George W. Bush that if Iran were invaded, he would “make it my business to impeach him.” Mr. Biden claimed that he had the backing of five constitutional scholars. (A point of clarification: The House issues impeachments, which are like indictments. The Senate holds the trial.)
Windchy concludes, “Obviously, some kind of drastic action – far more than a House resolution – will be needed if the WPR ever is to put a check on executive war-making.”
He is correct, but so far the Republican leadership has offered only toothless resolutions and golf dates. Obviously, some kind of drastic action — far more than the House leaders are willing to offer — will be needed if America is to stop King Obama from starting wars by executive decree wherever Muslim fundamentalists yearn to live Shari’a-compliant lives. Conservatives should not be afraid to threaten everything including legally prosecuting Obama before the next election — nor to replace their own party’s leadership if fail to do so.