President Obama swore an oath to “… preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He should have sworn to obey it.
Congress, alone, has the power to declare war, and to make all the laws necessary to engage in military conflict. The War Powers Act defines precisely what is required of the president before military action may commence.
Obama launched 118 missiles and dropped 40 bombs on Libya without a thought about Congress or the Constitution.
He was quite concerned, however, about the United Nations. He hardly noticed the attacks on protesters until the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government. Within hours after U.N. approval, the U.S. military was engaged – without the knowledge or approval of Congress.
This event is proof-positive evidence of two staggering realities: Obama refuses to accept the limitations on government, and particularly on his office, imposed by the Constitution, and Obama considers the United Nations to be a higher authority than Congress.
This event should be grounds for severe congressional censure, if not impeachment.
When President Bush bombed Iraq, he had congressional approval. Nevertheless, the left went berserk in protest, claiming that “Bush lied; people died.” In response to a question from a Boston Globe reporter, Obama said: “As president, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law” (Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007).
Obviously, Obama lied; people died. Where are the leftist protesters?
This issue is far more serious than simply pointing out again the duplicitous action (or inaction) of the progressive left. The fact that Obama disregarded the Constitution while submitting to the United Nations Security Council, and engaging the U.S. military on the authority of a few leaders of other nations gathered in Paris, is behavior that cannot go unchallenged.
Obama’s action is not simply endorsement of global governance; it is submission to it.
No power on earth is superior to the sovereignty of the United States government – unless the U.S. government yields its sovereignty voluntarily. Obama has consistently indicated that he wants the U.N. to exercise global sovereignty by supporting several treaties that expand U.N. authority. Now he has removed all doubt. Obama must be held accountable for ignoring the Constitution and for obeying instructions issued by an international committee.
Social media sites are abuzz with comments about Obama’s failure to consult with, and secure approval from, Congress before launching into military action. Every representative and senator should be deluged with phone calls from constituents demanding that the president be, at least, reprimanded for his behavior – and possibly impeached.
If Obama’s flagrant anti-American behavior is allowed to go undisciplined, America is doomed to become little more than an administrative unit of the United Nations. Most of the member nations of the U.N. despise the United States and are eager to see her wealth redistributed to the underdeveloped nations. This, too, is a goal with which Obama apparently agrees.
Global governance is quite real. As early as 1995, Gustave Speth, former Clinton transition team member appointed to head the U.N. Development Program, told the World Conference on Rio+5, that:
“Global governance is here, here to stay, and, driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand.” Speth defined global governance to be: “a set of interacting guidance and control mechanisms that include both state and non-state actors, actors both public and private, both national and multilateral.”
The meeting in Paris on March 19, attended by Hillary Clinton and representatives from other nations, was a group of “state actors issuing guidance and control mechanisms” that resulted in the bombing of a sovereign nation – using U.S. military assets without congressional approval. This action is global governance in action. Global governance must be rejected and national sovereignty reaffirmed as the only authority that governs the citizens of the United States.
If Barrack Hussein Obama cannot accept this concept, then he must be impeached. If there are too many progressive globalists still in Congress to accomplish this feat, then they too must be replaced with candidates who not only swear to “… preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” but who pledge to obey it in every law and action.
The election in November 2010 was a good start toward restoring the Constitution. The election in 2012 will determine whether we do, in fact, respect and restore the Constitution or continue down Obama’s road toward global governance.