Impeach Obama for Treason – Tancredo on Benghazi, Libyahttp://gulagbound.com/35723/impeach-obama-for-treason-tom-tancredo-on-benghazi-libya/#.UJgrecIUMis.twitter … Since the MSM won't report it, maybe Twitter will do the job
Impeach Obama for Treason – Tancredo on Benghazi, Libya
November 5, 2012, 12:32 pm By 8 Comments
BENGHAZI AMOUNTS TO GIVING ‘AID AND COMFORT’ TO THE ENEMY
The four American deaths in Benghazi are a direct result of decisions and actions by President Obama that undermine the national-security interests of the United States. Those deaths may well be only a foretaste of the catastrophe awaiting the United States if Barack Hussein Obama remains in office four more years.
As we all know, Obama may be removed by a vote of the people Nov. 6. But if not, if the lapdog media succeed in hiding his malfeasance and incompetence well enough for Obama to win a narrow victory at the polls, then Congress may summon the courage to exercise its constitutional duty to impeach and remove him.
Obama’s foreign-policy disasters have not been a major focus of the presidential race, and that is unfortunate. The grave national-security issues raised in the Benghazi fiasco cannot be easily or intelligently addressed in a 30-second television spot, but they are nonetheless critical to our future safety and well-being. Obama’s pro-Islamist policies are more than mere blips on the political radar screen.
In the view of many, Obama had earned impeachment even before the Benghazi tragedy of Sept. 11. His open abuse of power in making recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, his open defiance of Congress in his administrative amnesty for 2 million illegal aliens, his misuse of “executive privilege” in withholding documents pertaining to the illegal Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal – those actions alone qualify as impeachable offenses under the Constitution.
However, if treason is added to the mix, Congress will find it hard to shirk its duty to impeach him. The many people who think those other offenses do not rise to the constitutional standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” will not be so charitable with regard to the crime of treason.
But when does a foreign policy “blunder” cross the line into treason? Well, maybe when it is not a blunder at all but the entirely predictable consequence of a deliberate policy that invites attack on our embassies and indeed our homeland.
The word treason means a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. Article III of the U.S. Constitution defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. If radical Islam is a self-declared enemy of the United States, as can be easily demonstrated, Obama has certainly given them aid and comfort: Most Americans will think that welcoming the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House and appointing Muslim Brotherhood members to important posts does in fact constitute “aid and comfort.”
Muslim Brotherhood emblem
If the Muslim Brotherhood is not an avowed enemy of the United States, what else should we call an organization that openly and officially calls for the replacement of the U.S. Constitution by Shariah law? Apparently, an Islamist armed to the teeth must carry an al-Qaida membership card to qualify for Obama’s distrust.
Here is the brute fact of the matter. The attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist act. Obama’s foreign policies and decisions not only left the consulate vulnerable to attack but in fact invited the attack – and then he blamed an unknown American film for the attack and turned a blind eye on the al-Qaida allied terrorists who were responsible.
Despite the establishment media’s best efforts to protect Obama from any fallout from the Benghazi deaths, we now know that Obama and his team lied about those events.
Obama lied when he said the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous act in response to an obscure film no one in Libya had yet seen. He knew differently. He lied when he said the Libyan embassy staff had not requested additional security for its Benghazi consulate. He lied in the weeks leading up to the Benghazi attack when he said al-Qaida had been “knocked back on its heels” and is no longer a threat to the United States.
Obama’s lies about the Benghazi attack and the four American deaths are lies told to cover up not State Department “incompetence” but the predictable consequences of policies of denial, neglect and stupidity toward our nation’s enemy, radical Islam.
But here is the most damning aspect Obama’s behavior. Obama is unwilling even today to name the enemy that has declared war on the United States and to deal forthrightly with that imminent threat. Our pro-Islamist president will not name Islamism, the Muslim Brotherhood and the government of Iran as enemies of the United States even though they have declared war on us and are engaged in numerous plots to bring death and destruction to the American homeland.
Why are we so reluctant to call this by its right name – treason?
The failure in Benghazi was more than a State Department failure to provide needed security for the embassy personnel in our Libyan outpost. That failure is bad enough, but it is only part of a larger betrayal. Additional security was denied to Benghazi consulate because doing so would have been an admission that eastern Libya was under the effective control of armed militias allied with al-Qaida. Making that admission would have undermined one of the pillars of Obama’s re-election.
When the attack was under way, military assistance that was only two hours away was denied. Today’s revelation by the CIA that it sent a four-person support team from the capital, Tripoli, does not answer the question of why military backup was denied and who denied it. Sending additional CIA support to the post was admirable but was too little and too late. Why was military support at AFRICOM – less than two hours distant – denied when it was available and ready to deploy? Did Secretary of Defense Panetta consult Obama in making that decision?
The many unanswered questions about Benghazi are unanswered for only one reason: Truthful answers would embarrass Obama and jeopardize his re-election. This is election fraud conducted not from Chicago but straight from the West Wing of the White House.
Thanks to a compliant media, the American people will not have those answers in time to make an informed choice on Tuesday. It will fall to the people’s representatives in Congress to find those answers. And when the full truth is known, Congress must consider removing Barack Obama for giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies – and that is treason against the United States.
