Remove Obama: ISIS and the President’s dereliction of duty

Remove Obama: ISIS and the President’s dereliction of duty

Obama is singularly incapable of or unwilling to defend the U.S. and its people against radical Islam.

Adaptive work _ Obama and ISIS flag

WASHINGTON, November 20, 2015 – The first role of the state, and the most basic duty of the American president, is to protect the nation and its people from foreign threats.

After the Friday the 13th attacks on Paris, it is no longer possible to pretend that ISIS is not a threat to Western Civilization and to the U.S.  As such, the American people are entitled to demand of President Obama nothing short of the eradication of its self-declared Caliphate, the elimination of every individual in its ranks, and the utter bankruptcy of the evil ideology upon which it rests.

Yet Obama has declared ISIS, authors of systematic rape slavery, butchery of children, and genocide, nothing more than a “JV team,” a bunch of “criminals” whose savagery has no connection to Islam. The attack and deaths in Paris are nothing more than a “setback,” and whose actions require no reconfiguration of strategy whatsoever.

Paris attacks reveal deadly ISIS strategy shift

Moreover, Obama has abjured any leadership role for the U.S. in the defeat of ISIS, which he claims is “contained” and represents less of a threat to the American people than climate change.

Though shocking, this is nothing new.

The entirety of Obama’s Middle East foreign policy has been devoted to withdrawing U.S. forces short of victory, deposing secular Arab regimes, installing radical Islamist governments, arming Iranian extremists with nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, and funneling unvetted “refugees” into the U.S.

Obama has made merry denying the existence of the very concept of “radical Islam,” firing professors and hundreds of generals and admirals with the temerity to contradict his policies, alienating Israel and Gulf Arab allies, cooking intelligence to pretend that American non-strategy is working, and otherwise aiding and abetting the rise of ISIS through inaction and denial.

It is not hyperbolic to suggest that Obama is the single most important figure in the rise of radical Islam and the spread of the Caliphate since the Prophet Muhammad himself.

This is not, as many commentators have opined, the product of monumental incompetence, coupled with a delusional incapacity to recognize reality. Rather, the Obama presidency was deliberately conceived to alter the U.S. internally and in its relations with other nations. In then-candidate Barack Hussein Obama’s own words at a Missouri campaign rally in 2008,

“[w]e are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Few of the more than one hundred million American voters, moved by war weariness, anger at incumbents, eagerness to elect the first president with African heritage envisioned that the Obama presidency would result in the deliberate abnegation of their national security.

Yet seven years into his presidency, Obama promises the American people more of the same even as it becomes crystal clear that we are in, and are losing, World War III.

What if an attack orders of magnitude worse than 9/11 were to befall the U.S., as ISIS has threatened it intends to inflict? Suppose one million Americans were immolated in a suitcase nuclear attack on New York City. Would Obama concede that radical Islam exists, that it intends our destruction? Would he insure that all the resources and instruments of power the U.S. and its allies can wield must be used to eradicate the scourge of our time?

I submit that the answer to the foregoing questions is “no,” for reasons rooted in his thinly-vetted personal history, deeply-held ideological predilections, and at times openly anti-Western worldview.

Consequently, it is imperative that President Obama be removed, lawfully and consistent with the U.S. Constitution, from office.

Ben Carson: Can Obama use martial law to keep White House post 2016

There are three ways in which this might be achieved.

First, Sections 3 and 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide procedures for the removal from office of the President, either temporarily or permanently, whenever he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office[.]”

This would require either written submission to this effect from Obama himself or from Vice President Biden and the majority of the cabinet. For political reasons, this method, designed to remedy instances of physical or mental illness, is of no practical value.

Second, Section 4 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution permits impeachment and conviction of a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which might include negligent or deliberate failure to protect the nation.

However, the history of presidential impeachment suggests that this method too would fail so long as members of the Democratic Party in the Senate refused to convict Obama. This leaves the U.S. Armed Forces, launching a coup, as the sole mechanism whereby to remove President Obama for failure to discharge his duty to defend the U.S. against radical Islam.

At first blush, the likelihood of the U.S. military rising up in arms to oust President Obama would seem to so closely approach zero as not to merit serious discussion. The lack of any history of U.S. military coup has been hailed as a triumph of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution, who were convinced that the optimal level of military involvement in U.S. politics is zero. By placing a civilian in command of the military, they divided and limited military power to protect liberties.

For the first 239 years of American independence, an apolitical and servient military has been so institutionally committed to the view that intervention in politics is anathema that the prospect of a coup has been all but inconceivable.

The Founding Fathers’ presumption—that both civilian leaders and the military would ally against, rather than give rise to, threats foreign and domestic—held fast.

Yet this presumption, circa 2015, has failed. President Barack Obama’s response, if it can be called that, to the existential threat of radical Islam calls into question, for the first time in U.S. history, whether the Constitution truly requires complete subordination of the military to the president, and it raises the question of whether the Constitution permits or even condones military intervention under extraordinary circumstances.

To conclude that the Founding Fathers turned blind eyes to the danger future presidents holding the reins of the military might pose to the American people is to deny their foresight.  Indeed, they recognized that the military might be required to become guardians of the Constitution as well as the instrument of the people in overcoming presidents who threatened, or failed to protect, their lives and freedoms.

What if the American people, in the words of Dr. Ben Carson, have elected and re-elected someone who

“want[s] to destroy this nation” and works to “create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country, undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the military[?]”

And, worse, what if that president—Barack Obama—is either unwilling to battle radical Islam or amenable to its aims? Under these conditions, does the Constitution require complete subordination of the military to such a commander-in-chief? Does the U.S. military have the right or even the duty to intervene as Constitutional and popular savior? Is such a duty incumbent upon the U.S. military at present?

Finally understanding Obama’s hatred of America

The stubborn refusal of President Obama to acknowledge that the U.S. is at war with an enemy that poses an existential threat and to fight that enemy with all instruments of U.S. power suggests that at some point soon—if not now, then certainly after an attack on the U.S. to which his response is similarly tepid—a sufficient factual predicate will exist to allow reasonable minds to answer the foregoing questions in the affirmative.

A military coup is not yet and may not prove necessary to safeguard Americans against radical Islam. The voters may yet have the chance to usher in a new president committed to the destruction of ISIS and its wicked ideology.

Much can happen between now and the end of President Obama’s term in January 2017. Yet ISIS has vowed and U.S. intelligence agencies expect follow-on attacks on the U.S. and its allies. And if past is prologue Obama will do next to nothing in response other than recite some of the “legitimate grievances” Islamists incubate against the U.S.

Obama has proven for seven shameful years that he is the best friend radical Islam could possibly have in the Oval Office and, as such, is a domestic enemy of the Constitution and the American people.

If partisan politics continues to prevent other constitutional methods from removing a president willfully derelict in his duty to defend the nation against radical Islam, the U.S. military—bound by its oath of office to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic”—may be justified in ousting President Obama.

Whatever transpires between now and January 2017, the risible response to the Friday the 13th attacks establishes that it is past time, by any lawful means, to remove President Obama from power for dereliction of his duty to engage and defeat radical Islam.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

William Brute Bradford
Dr. William C. “Brute” Bradford, PhD (Northwestern), LLM (Harvard), is Attorney General of the Chiricahua Apache Nation, a former intelligence officer, and an academic with more than 30 published articles on strategy, national security, terrorism, the law of war, radical Islam, and Native American affairs. Dr. Bradford has presented his research worldwide to civilian and military audiences at universities, think tanks, and other public forums, and he is a frequent commentator in U.S. and foreign media. The existential threat of radical Islam, the financial instability of the U.S. political economy, and the erosion of traditional American moral values form the basis of his research, scholarship, and advocacy. He is married to his childhood sweetheart, Shoshana Bradford. He enjoys hunting, fishing, traveling, cooking, and singing.