Syria: Is the President of the United States willing to commit a constitutional crime?

There is no way that President Barack Hussein Obama can justify committing an act of war against a sovereign nation without the express permission of Congress unless that foreign sovereign nation poses an actual or imminent threat. This, the opinion of Constitutional lawyer Barack Hussein Obama. Since Barack Hussein Obama does possess the intent to knowingly violate the Constitution of the United States and commit an international crime, it should be recognized that such action should be the grounds for impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate. The sentence should go beyond removal from office and the perpetrator should be tried in a military tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

It appears that the motivation for such an action presents two alternatives. Alternative one, Barack Hussein Obama is willing to use United States forces to attack a foreign sovereign nation for the purposes of burnishing his reputation, and alternative two, Barack Hussein Obama is aiding and abetting the rebels which appear to be aiding the Muslim Brotherhood and is infiltrated by representative of al Qaeda.

Should the rebels force the ouster of the Syrian government, it is most likely that they will move to install strict Sharia law; with the possibility of ethnic cleansing of all persons they consider to be traitors and infidels, namely the Alawites, Coptic Christians, and others who represent a loose interpretation of Islam. In this case, Barack Hussein Obama should be tried as a co-conspirator and charged with crimes against humanity.

However, in the event that sending Cruise Missiles into Syria is an impotent show of force, Kabuki Theatre if you will, President Barack Hussein Obama should be charged with the willful and illegal destruction of government assets. 

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat.” ~ Barack Obama speaking to the Boston Globe in reference to George Bush’s foreign policy.

In 2007, Barack Obama was asked when Presidents have the authority to launch a military strike without congressional authorization. He had a precise answer at the ready.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat,” Obama told the Boston Globe.

Back then, the target in question was Iran, and Obama was a first-term Senator running for President against the excesses of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. But the statement stands in stark opposition to Obama’s view now. The Obama Administration is on the cusp of intervening in a Syrian civil war that by all accounts does not pose an imminent domestic threat to the U.S. And Obama appears set to unilaterally authorize punitive strikes against Bashar Assad’s regime.

It would not be the first time Obama acted outside his own previous definition of presidential war powers. In 2011, with a bloody conflict escalating in Libya, Obama authorized the U.S. to join an international coalition that established a no-fly zone in order to stem the threat of mass slaughter. Obama argued the intervention was justified.

“The growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States,” he wrote in a letter to Congress. Officials pointed to the possibility of an imminent massacre of rebel forces, but no immediate threat to national security.

“In 2007, Obama was adamant that the President did not have the power to authorize an attack if there was no imminent threat to the U.S.,” PolitiFact wrote at the time. “But now he has authorized just such an action.” The fact-checking site called the reversal a “full flop.” Source: U.S. Intervention in Syria Would Reaffirm Obama's Biggest Flip-Flop | TIME.com

Bottom line …

Our enemies are killing each other and the United States is in no position to act as a policeman to the world in the absence of a United Nations’ coalition and a legal basis for taking action. At this point in time, we do not know to a certainty what chemical weapons were used, who used the chemical weapons, and the motivation for the use of chemical weapons. Unless this was a test of Obama’s resolve or a false flag operation, there appears to be no justification or legal authority for striking Syria at this time.

We should not overlook the possibility that Syria is a cover for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities – and a way to amass troops and materiel for such a strike without an overt action that may lead Iran to mount a preemptive strike on Israel. At this point in time, we do not know if Iran has a nuclear weapon – but we do know that the Obama Administration has apparently done little or nothing to stop the production of a nuclear bomb with the exception of covert sabotage.

I do not trust the man who lied to the American people and lied to the world about Benghazi. I do not feel confident that Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and John Brennan have the requisite skills to correctly advise President Obama on military affairs.  Considering we still do not know who gave the stand-down order in Benghazi, I think that the President’s leadership and team is open to question.

Let us hope that Obama does not provoke international terrorism with an illegal act.

-- steve

BTW: There will be a launch of a heavy NRO (National Reconissance Office) secret sattelite aboard a Delta-IV heavy launch vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base at 10:52 a.m.  Nice that the mainstream media publishes these details as we ramp up for a potential war in the Middle East. 


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS