One of the most frightening liberals from the last half century is still clinging to power in spite of massive incompetence, incoherence, and bouts of insanity between botox injections.
“The superficial distinctions of Fascism, Bolshevism, Hitlerism, are the concern of journalists and publicists; the serious student sees in them only one root-idea of a complete conversion of social power into State power.” — Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945)
I am beginning to think that, short of Obama being videotaped murdering a Fox News reporter on the east lawn of the White House, he will not be impeached.
Calls for a president’s impeachment are commonplace. I have written in the past that Obama was likely unimpeachable on the constitutional grounds of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Even so, I increasingly believe that Obama should be impeached.
The Framers were intentionally vague about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, but experts on the Constitution define the terms to mean any serious abuse of power to include both legal and illegal activities. Thus, misconduct, violations of the oath of office, and serious incompetence fall under the purview of impeachment.
I don’t think one has to be a lawyer to conclude that deliberately and repeatedly lying to Americans about the passage and implementation of the Affordable Care Act that is depriving them of their preferred healthcare insurance, fining them if they do not purchase insurance they may not want or need, while giving the federal government control over one sixth of the nation’s economy is an impeachable offense.
Everything involving Obamacare wreaks of an attack on the most fundamental elements of the Constitution whose emphasis is on individual liberties and whose construction strictly limits the powers of the central government. Requiring people to purchase something they don’t want strikes me as distinctly unconstitutional and, indeed, the Supreme Court gave Obamacare a pass by ruling it was a tax.
I have no doubt that presidents have lied to the public in the past. Even George Washington was accused of being a “usurper” of powers not delineated in the Constitution when, over the course of the first two terms of the presidency, he asserted the right of the chief executive to control executive appointments, determine foreign policy and military affairs, as well as government finances, and federal law enforcement. He was the first to legislate by presidential proclamation and to issue secret fiats under the cloak of executive privilege. Those powers exist to this day, passed down through the office to its 44th occupant, Barack Obama.
I think impeachment is needed because we face three more years of Obama’s presidency and, with Obamacare alone, he has wreaked havoc on the lives of millions of Americans by deception.
The impact on the nation’s economy is already being felt in the reduction of working hours that it has imposed on millions, the reduction in the creation of jobs well below normal growth, the huge increases in the costs of healthcare insurance, the structural instability of the funding aspects of the law, and the interposition of the government between patient and doctor. The inclusion of the so-called death panels is real and is an abomination.
If Obamacare by itself is not cause for impeachment, the deliberate hollowing out of the U.S. military poses a threat to the security of the nation and the recent removal of high ranking officers raises memories of Stalin’s purge of generals deemed likely to oppose his tyrannical control. The morale of the members of the armed services is likely at an all-time low and recruitment for the all-voluntary service is surely impacted as well.
It appears that Obama intends to rule by executive order as his means of by-passing the authority of the Congress. It has proven to be a weak instrument of restraint and polls show it is held in very low esteem.
The basis of the failures and cover-up of the Benghazi attack that resulted in the death of an American ambassador and three others should be sufficient cause for impeachment. It was dereliction of duty.
The use of “climate change”, aka “global warming” as justification for the destruction of essential elements of the nation’s supply of energy and the scandals involving the waste of billions in loans to “clean energy”, wind and solar companies, is further evidence of the President’s deliberate deception of the public. There is no warming. The Earth has been in a natural cycle of cooling for about seventeen years and is likely to continue for many years to come.
The recent negotiations with Iran have revealed that Obama has already begun to lift aspects of the sanctions placed on that rogue nation. Permitting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is, I suggest, a crime against humanity.
Do I think that Obama will be impeached by this Congress? No.
The Republican Party that controls the House is sharply divided and the Senate, in which the trial would occur, is controlled by the Democrats, the President’s party. There will be no impeachment.
Realistically, the only remaining hope is the forthcoming 2014 midterm elections. Voters, millions of whom are being adversely affected, may conclude that candidates who have supported Obamacare in the past should be removed and those who want to repeal it in the future, should be elected. Between now and then, we shall surely hear of Americans who have died as the result of losing coverage. In the plainest term, that is murder.
We have reached a point in which Obama is actually lying about the lies he has told. We may not be able to remove him from office, but he can be politically neutered if enough Americans wake up to the dire threat he poses to the nation and to their lives.
© Alan Caruba, 2013
Bureaucracy: In his interview last week with NBC News, President Obama tacitly admitted that the government that he has put in charge of the nation’s health care system is virtually incapable of handling it.
‘It is so bureaucratic and so cumbersome that a whole bunch of it doesn’t work or it ends up being way over cost.”
No, that wasn’t some hard-core Tea Party lawmaker calling for a radical downsizing of the federal government. That was Obama attempting to explain how it is that his administration could fail to build a working website despite spending 3-1/2 years and hundreds of millions of dollars on it.
Even now, more than a month after it was supposed to launch, there’s little hope the Healthcare.gov site will be fully functional by Obama’s new Nov. 30 deadline.
To be sure, Obama spoke specifically about federal IT purchases. He explained that his presidential campaign was so adept at using IT because he was “not constrained by a bunch of federal procurement rules.”
“Probably the biggest gap between the private sector and the federal government is when it comes to IT,” he said.
But if Obama admits that a cumbersome, bureaucratic government can’t handle something as simple as IT purchases, why should anyone believe it can manage something far more vast and complex, like the health care system, much less make it better and more efficient?
Had Secretary of State John Kerry not been absolutely certain that a deal with Iran was about to be signed there’s no way he would have showed up in Geneva to take credit for what he thought would be a foreign-policy coup. Indeed, as reports tell us, he was not alone in that opinion as the Iranians, European Union foreign-policy chief, and just about everyone else there were just as sure the latest meeting of the P5+1 negotiating club would end in a celebration. But to their surprise—and to the relief of those in the United States, Israel, and moderate Arab states that were looking on in horror at an agreement that eased international sanctions on Iran in exchange for little if nothing from Tehran—the party was spoiled by an unlikely voice of reason: French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. As Britain’s Guardian notes today, Fabius’s “torpedoing” of the talks by his insistence on more concessions on both the Islamist state’s enrichment of uranium and their construction of a plutonium plant enraged the Iranians and frustrated Kerry and some of the other negotiators. While there is a lively debate about the French motive for their tough stance, those who care about stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon can only say thank heaven for the French.
Is Kerry the Worst Secretary of State Ever? by Jonathan S. Tobin