There Is a Growing Drumbeat
For Obama's Ouster
Special to EIR
Aug. 17—On Aug. 8, Kentucky Democratic State Senator Perry B. Clark issued a call for President Obama's immediate removal from office and the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, through passage of H.R. 1489 and a parallel Senate bill. Clark's powerful statement, prompted by President Obama's pivotal role in pushing through the unconstitutional Super-Congress austerity deal days earlier, included an explicit endorsement of American statesman Lyndon LaRouche's demand that Obama immediately resign or face impeachment.
Clark charged that the debt ceiling deal, rammed through Congress with immense pressure from the City of London and Wall Street financial establishment, along with the Obama White House, was no different than the March 1933 Enabling Act that gave the Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler dictatorial powers, that only ended with the Allied defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II.
The Clark call for President Obama to step down or face impeachment immediately provoked a firestorm of media attacks, led by the local Louisville, Ky. affiliate of National Public Radio. The reaction among some other Democrats, however, was to take the Clark call with deadly seriousness. Within days of its release, the Clark call was circulating widely among Democrats throughout the country. One e-mailing of the statement featured a call for other leading Democrats to join the effort to remove President Obama from office—before he succeeds in totally wrecking the United States.
As Clark asserted, Obama's role in the ripping up of the U.S. Constitution was a defining moment for many American patriots. Since the President signed the debt ceiling deal, his approval ratings have plunged to levels below that of Jimmy Carter, on the eve of his crushing reelection defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980. In one Gallup poll, Obama's approval ratings fell to just 39%. According to one senior Democratic Party strategist, private polling data was far worse. According to one such poll, if Presidential elections were to take place today, Obama would lose to Republican Party frontrunner Mitt Romney by more than 20 points. Furthermore, in a recent USA Today poll, if Obama were to run against Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary, the Secretary of State would win by 82% to 18%!
According to sources close to the Obama White House, the President is in a state of shock, and near-psychological meltdown, in the face of the recent outburst of anti-Obama venom from the American people. Obama campaign strategists have told other Democratic Party campaign operatives that they plan to launch a vicious campaign of personal attacks against Romney in the immediate days ahead. Reportedly the view among leading Democrats is that this strategy is a reflection of the sense of desperation among Obama and his top political advisors. These people—David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and the other first-tier Obama campaign officials—are clueless; and even combined, they don't have the IQ of former Bill Clinton advisor James Carville, one leading Democrat, who was privy to the campaign strategy session, told EIR.
He's Gotta Go!
These belated revelations about the Obama meltdown and flagrant putsch against the Constitution don't even come close to addressing the depth of crisis reflected in the Clark and LaRouche statements. The United States is in a terminal economic and financial collapse, far beyond the depth of the Great Depression of the 1930s. There is no hope of any recovery in the United States so long as Obama remains in office. The rest of the world cannot survive the disintegration of the United States, which City of London- and Wall Street-tool Obama is committed to seeing through to the bitter end of America as we know it.
For months now, liberal Democrats have been forced to criticize the President, as he has come out as the leading proponent of undermining Social Security (the payroll tax deduction), and cutting Medicare and Medicaid (an item Obama himself put on the table in the "grand bargain" negotiations with the Republicans on the alleged debt ceiling debate). Now, some are finally realizing that they have to break with him.
One of the most stinging indictments of Nerobama comes from former Newsweek (now Daily Beast) editor and former Obama supporter William Boyles, who calls Obama the "Oval Office Appeaser." Although Obama likes to fancy himself in the image of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill (the latter of whom Boyles mistakenly views in a positive light), he is actually more like the great appeaser, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin.
"In the 1930s, desperate to keep the peace, Chamberlain caved in to every German demand. And he got war anyway. Let me be clear: the right-wing radicals in control of the Republican Party of course are not Nazis. But Obama is like Chamberlain," maybe even worse. In Boyles' view, "Chamberlain had a weak hand and played it poorly. Obama had a strong hand and threw in his chips....
"Chamberlain did one bold thing. He finally realized he was not the right man to lead Britain in dangerous times. He resigned so that Churchill could take over. There is one bold thing Obama could and should do. He should bow out of the race for reelection and throw his support behind Hillary Clinton—the leader we should have chosen in the first place."
While Boyles' time frame is all wrong, and he is still making excuses for Obama's fascist nature, the circulation of this call will accelerate support for the mandate that Obama must be out now.
Even less bold are the so-called "Progressives" who are talking insistently about the need to find a Democrat who will challenge Obama in the Presidential primaries. A resolution to this effect actually passed at the California state Democratic convention two weekends ago, resulting in a freakout by the Obama faction in the party, which retaliated by refusing to recertify the caucus. But the talk now goes far beyond in California.
Even Obama knows he's in trouble with his core constituencies—namely the labor movement and the African-American community. EIR has received reports that the President has responded by saying that he thinks these groups have "no place else to go," and therefore that he can continue with his British/Wall Street agenda without concern on that front. But there have been some shots fired across the bow.
In the black community, for example, Princeton professor, Dr. Cornel West, and talkshow host Tavis Smiley just concluded an 18-city tour, during which they blasted the President's agenda for the fact that it literally ignores the issue of poverty in the nation. West and Smiley, under pressure by paid Obama agents like Al Sharpton for "personal attacks" on the President, have softened their rhetoric a bit, but they are unambiguous that the recent budget deal by the President is an attack on the black community, and must be reversed.
Even more strident are other sections of the African-American community, as reflected in publications such as the Black Agenda Report (BAR). The BAR argues that Barack Obama is not the "Great Black Hope" that blacks thought he would be when they supported him in 2008. Rather, he has turned out to be the "Great Black Betrayer," who has "nothing to offer but austerity, suffering and war." So charged Glen Ford, executive director of the BAR, in his Aug. 10 article, "Obama Slipping: Black America Waking Up To The Nightmare."
BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon, a member of the Green Party's state committee in Georgia, agrees with Missouri Democrat Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver's characterization of the recent debt deal as a "Satan sandwich," and adds that "the master chef in that kitchen, the man who put 'entitlements on the table,' in the first place, is President Barack Obama."
Even more potentially damaging to Obama is the action brewing within the organized labor movement, which is not prepared to just sit back while Obama rams through new (job-destroying) free-trade pacts, and rips up the social safety net. On Aug. 13, the Truthout blog reported that 13 Building Trades unions, representing 2.5 million workers, plan to boycott the 2012 Democratic Convention in Charlotte, N.C., because North Carolina is the most anti-union state in the country. The IAM, with about 650,000 members, announced that it would boycott the convention for the same reason.
There are indications that other sections of the AFL-CIO might follow suit—with immense implications for Obama's and the Democratic Party's finances, since the labor movement traditionally provides huge amounts of cash and manpower for Democratic Presidential candidates.
Where Is the Impeachment Threat?
President Obama's repeated violations of the U.S. Constitution, in particular on the separation of powers and defense of the general welfare, should be resulting in moves toward impeachment. While members of both parties have publicly acknowledged that the President has carried out impeachable offenses, they are all holding back.
Astute observers point out that Republican leaders are unlikely to make such a move, since the President is carrying out their policy much more efficiently than any Republican President would be able to coerce the Congress into accepting. On the Democratic side, cowardice and "party loyalty" continue to reign.
Nonetheless, the just-decided usurpation of Congressional power to impose budget cuts has sparked a spate of sharp attacks on the President, even from liberals. One of the most striking was that from Democratic economist James Galbraith in an interview with the Italian daily Il Messaggero Aug. 9. Asked whether the super-committee will provide the right suggestions, he replied: "For God's sake! It will be a Junta, a body without legitimacy. It would be better to leave decisions to members of Congress; true, they quarrel, but eventually they must always be accountable to their constituencies. This committee created out of nothing, without political controls, worries me a lot."
For Michael Brenner, Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, the deal on the "debt ceiling crisis" is an "unprecedented reactionary turn," and "an attack on the authority of the peoples' elected representatives by the creation of an ad hoc 'super Congress,' which erodes the constitutional foundations of the Republic."
In fact, as LaRouche has pointed out for the past several years, Obama is a narcissist, who has adopted the agenda of unconstitutional Hitler policies which his British masters have put in front of him. He cannot be reformed; only removed. And unless leading circles begin to act on that reality soon, the United States, as a nation, will be destroyed.