Sunday, July 25, 2010

Carol Platt Liebau Is An Idiot

Carol Platt Liebau is a guest host for Hugh Hewitt and his "Smart Guy" Erwin Chemerinsky. Like Chemerinsky and Barak Hussein Obama, Liebau is a "constitutional scholar." However Liebau is no more a scholar than Obama and Chemerinsky. She has been on a tear while substituting for Hewitt on his radio show, attacking Tom Tancredo for calling for the impeachment of Obama for various criminal and political crimes. {Ed. Note: Sorry no link for Liebau as the transcripts of her shows have curiously not been posted on Hugh Hewitt's website and Hewitt charges for audio.]

Her first claim is that Obama cannot be impeached until there is an investigation. Well, Tancredo was calling for that investigation, which would be short since Senate candidate Joe Sestak has admitted that he was offered a job by Bill Clinton in the Obama Regime. I certainly don't see a problem with putting Billyjeff Bentpecker before a House Special Committee, but Liebau was somewhat defending Bentpecker, sort of claiming that his crimes were sort of not quite impeachable, but she backed off on that quite quickly, I guess having realized that Bentpecker was convicted of perjury and was fined and lost his law license for that offense.


Liebau's rant continued claiming that there was no evidence, but she was ignoring the public statements from Sestak that he was corruptly offered a position with the federal government in violation of 18 USC 211, a felony. Certainly that is a high crime, and more than a misdemeanor, a felony.


Liebau ignores the other aspect of Tancredo's arguement for impeachment is that Obama has violated his Oath of Office by failing to see that the laws of the United States were faithfully executed:


For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.

Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles. To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or "transcended" through international agreements or "norms."

More importantly as I have detailed on this site, Obama has refused to enforce the immigration laws of the United States. Time after time, illegal aliens arrested by ICE or local police are ordered released by the Obama Regime.


Failing to fulfill his oath is an impeachable offense. The President does not get to chose which laws to enforce, but is required to see that all are faithfully executed.


Liebau then claims that Obama cannot be impeached because that is what we have elections for, as if impeachment was not also part of our Constitution. It is as if impeachment did not exist for the "Constitution Scholar" Liebau.


But, in any event, it is the House of Representatives that decides what is an impeachable offense, not judges or "Constitutional Scholars" like Liebau. There is no appeal from impeachment; there is only the trial in the Senate, who determine if the charges are impeachable offenses and if the President is guilty. There is no independent review or other authority on what is an impeachable offense. Liebau should know that, but apparently doesn't.


Another issue that Liebau goes ballistic on is the John Kyl and Obama exchange on border security trade-off: amnesty for enforcement. Liebau jumps to Obama's defense, claiming Kyl backed off on the charge, but despite Kyl's limited modified hang-out, he did stand-by that Obama was proposing the trade-off; we know that Obama proposed the trade-off before and everyone knows that is his position.

Liebau also claims that Tancredo is an extremist with a history of dangerous statements on public policy, specifically refering to Tancredo's statement after Muslim terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11 that should there ever be an attack on the U.S. by Muslim terrorists with nuclear weapons that in retaliation the U.S. should strike at Mecca and Medina. Liebau claims taht this is outside of acceptable discourse and compares it with the nut jobs like Dennis Kucinich who claims to have seen a UFO. Liebau further claims, again, that she is second to none in opposing and fighting Muslim terrorism, but she, again, is incapable of giving a policy statement on what the U.S. should do if Al Queda hits the U.S. with nuclear weapons. Will she strike back at Karachi? Islamibad? Where would she strike against Al Queda after a nuclear attack? Well, Al Queda is funded by Muslim Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the other Gulf States. And they are Muslims. The most logical response by the U.S. to a nuclear attack by Al Queda is where they are funded from. The other option is to hold Islam hostage to any nuclear attack by Al Queda or other Sunni Muslim terrorist groups. They must know that Islam will be shown to be impotent if they strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons and the U. S. responds by destroying Mecca and Medina, especially destroying the Kabala. Islam would suffer a death blow by the destruction of the shrine at Mecca. Even Al Queda will not risk that. But they will risk a nuclear strike on the U.S. if Liebau is making policy because there will be no price to be paid.


As all should remember from the recall of Gray Davis, former Governor of California, such a removal is a political act, just as an election is a political act. Which gets us to Liebau's eventual point is that it is bad politics to try and impeach Obama. That, of course, is a different argument from that that impeachment is not applicable to Obama. She argued quite well that Tancredo is bad politics, such as his threat to run for Governor of Colorado on an independent ticket. But event that she was stymied by news that both Republican candidates were either useless or had serious ethical issues. It looks like Tancredo may even be the only viable Republican candidate, but, because of the immigration issue that Tancredo owns, Liebau is as mad as a hatter about him. But that is because she supports amnesty, which is the real point of all this.

No comments: