I couldn’t agree with you more. That was well written and thoughtful.
I agree with your analogy that we need a divorce ASAP. It is my opinion, and has been for quite some time, that there will be no impeachment of Obama unless and until the evidence is not just overwhelming, but incredibly overwhelming.
I believe this to be true because of the consequences of even starting the process. I don’t have a racist bone in my body but that doesn’t matter. Can you imagine the national uproar that would happen if the House tried to impeach the first black president? It would be chaos and it could be uncontrollable.
There are people who support Obama because they truly believe he is the best person for the job. I personally disagree with these people but they have my respect because they are acting on their true belief. You and I may see these people as “misguided” but at least they are probably honest folks. If they are honest folks they can participate in debate and that debate, if conducted well, can change their minds. I would hazard to guess that this group of people is rather small compared to Obama supporters as a whole.
Then there is what I would call the uninformed folks and this group is very large. These people often can’t even spell politics, let alone understand politics. It isn’t because these people are stupid, though some might be. It is because they consider politics to be low on the list of important things. They consider their jobs, family, and livelihood to be more important than politics and that is kinda hard to argue with. These people more often than not just blindly accept whatever a politician promises and when the politician can’t deliver and finds someone to blame for his failures these people believe that as well. Some of these people are smart, and good debate can educate them, but this won’t work with all of them.
Then there are the folks who support Obama for the single reason that he is black and it is high-time we had a black president. This group of folks is incredibly large as well and their vote, which is every bit as equal to yours and mine, has no rational basis whatsoever. You can debate these people until you are blue in the face and when you are done all you will have is a blue face – nothing changed.
The bottom line is that Obama has a huge group of supporters and some of them have their heels dug in pretty deep. Any attempt to try to impeach him will be met with strong resistance and the House of Representatives needs to be prepared for this, and fortunately they know it.
President Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress and I wholeheartedly supported that impeachment. The Senate did not remove him and I kinda agree with that too. I never was a fan of Clinton but the alternative was Gore and I was less a fan of him. Clinton was impeached not for having extra-marital sex in the Whitehouse (as some of his supporters believe) but for lying to congress, which is a federal crime and many people serve several years in prison for the same.
To note – the Senate did not remove him because that lie to congress was indeed a lie about sex. A lie is a lie and the impeachment was justified. The Senate had the duty to evaluate if the crime warranted removal and they were allowed to see the bigger picture. The House could only look at the crime of lying to Congress and were not allowed to see the bigger picture. This is how our constitution works.
I say that to set up a question. If that was Obama who did exactly the same thing, committed the same crime, do you think he would be impeached? I don’t think so. I think the potential for riots and chaos would deter the House from ever starting the process. As much as I am not a fan of Obama, I would agree that in that case the risk would not warrant impeachment.
So what does warrant impeachment of Obama? Whatever it is it had better be so overwhelming as to break that nearly unbreakable bond with his most die-hard supporters. If it were not for the racial part of the issue, he would already have been impeached and removed.
Things are being added to the scale almost daily that can prompt the House to start the impeachment process. That scale will eventually tip in the direction of impeachment but I think the House as a whole is hoping that the tipping of the scale doesn’t happen until Obama is out of office, which means they won’t have to bite the bullet.
So what is adding up here? Where do I start? How about bailing-out General Motors? Where in the constitution does the federal government get the authority to spend tax dollars to rescue a corporation from bankruptcy and furthermore break or “impair” the obligation of contract (which can only be done by a federal bankruptcy judge) and not first payoff the bond-holders? This was a crime. The obligation of contract is specifically mentioned in the constitution (several times).
How about the cash-for-clunkers program? Where is the authority to spend tax dollars on that? This is a crime.
How about his investments in “green energy” specifically his investment and loss of tax dollars in Solyndra? It is not that he lost tax dollars that is a crime, because investment carries risk. It is that he had zero authority to spend tax dollars on that. This is a crime.
How about Fast-and-Furious and the cover-up thereof? Crime.
How about the excessive regulations by the EPA? This is a crime because he cannot regulate the economy through executive order or non-legislative bodies such as the EPA. ONLY congress can legislate. This is a crime and there are many more like it.
How about his selecting which laws to enforce and which laws to not enforce? He has no authority to do that. Making laws and repealing laws is a legislative power and specifically NOT an executive power. These are crimes of epic proportions.
How about the illegal war in Libya in 2011? We participated in an offensive war in Libya, dropping bombs which tend to kill people, and none of this had anything to do with the defense of our nation or the defense of our allies. This was a humanitarian mission to get Qaddafi to stop killing his own people. We illegally entered a sovereign nation to kill people who were not a threat to the United States.
I am not against using our military in humanitarian missions if time permits. Our military did a spectacular job in their humanitarian missions in hurricane Katrina and the humanitarian mission in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami. There is a difference here though. We did not, in either Katrina or Japan, employ offensive combat tactics and kill people. We did in Libya and had we attacked Syria it would have been the same but much worse. I am not a fan of Putin but if he gave pause for Obama to come back to reality then Putin did our nation a favor. Obama would have put Syrian blood on the hands of ALL Americans.
In Libya we killed people who were not our enemy, and did so under the guise of “humanitarianism.” This is not killing as an act of war, which is considered self-defense and therefore authorized (maybe not by the laws of God but certainly by the laws of man). No, this is murder and murder is a crime under any law.
Then there was the terrorist attack on our official United States Ambassador in Benghazi in 2012. Had this been four Americans murdered while on vacation in a foreign country, it would be over. However, since this involved our official Ambassador and our official United States presence in that foreign country, this was far more than the murder of four Americans.
This was a terrorist attack against the United States of America. It is not certain that we could have arrived there with enough force in time to save the Ambassador, as tragic as losing four Americans might be the laws of physics sometimes don’t play in your favor. This is not about the murder of four Americans (although that is important). This is about an attack on the United States of America and an attack on the freedoms of every American to be secure in their person and especially when performing official and non-combative duties in the service of our nation.
As a side note – keep this in mind because if the House Republicans ever conduct the investigation correctly, this will stop Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016. If they do this at the right time it will guarantee a Republican president.
If you are a designated combatant (armed soldier) then you take on a different status. The Ambassador was NOT a designated combatant. Bottom line (to keep this short), our nation was attacked and the person who is solely responsible to defend our nation (actually it is his highest duty and only purpose for having his job) failed to even TRY to defend the United States.
In war, you don’t always win every battle but not trying is not only treasonous and cowardly in the face of the enemy, but a breach of oath to the constitution and grounds for immediate impeachment and removal. The person responsible is none other than President Obama. This is a crime of epic proportions. Obama’s failure to properly investigate this dereliction of duty further endangers the United States and is yet ANOTHER incredibly-overwhelming justification for impeachment. But why would you want to investigate when all fingers must and will point to you. This is plain to see even without an investigation.
Abuse of the public trust by using or even allowing the IRS to punish fellow Americans for political purposes is a crime. Lois Lerner exercised her Fifth Amendment right to not be compelled to be a witness against herself. It is questionable if she did this correctly and if she did it incorrectly then she has waved her Fifth Amendment rights. I personally think she did it incorrectly and this opens the door for congress to compel her to testify. I will state my reasons and then state why that doesn’t even matter.
Lois Lerner took the stand and under oath testified that she had done “nothing wrong” and had “committed no crime” and only then did she invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. Well, you can’t have it both ways, you can’t testify that you did nothing wrong and then invoke those rights so as to not have to defend what you just said before invoking them. It doesn’t matter though and for several reasons.
You can look at it as though she cannot be compelled to testify or defend any statements she made once she invoked those rights. This means she has the right to STOP TALKING at that point. OK fine. However, BEFORE she invoked her right to not be a witness against herself, she made a very bold statement that she had “not committed any crime.”
OK, so congress shouldn’t touch anything AFTER she invoked her rights but she made that one statement BEFORE she invoked her rights. That is fair game and since it is extremely vague, congress can ask just about any question they want without stepping on her rights. Notice that congress is afraid to do that. Why? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that if they follow this trail to the end they will be forced to start the impeachment process?
Another interesting thing about the testimony of Lois Lerner is that the Fifth Amendment is designed to protect the PEOPLE from the government, not protect the government from the people. The government is fully and 100% accountable to the people. Lois Lerner, as a citizen has protection of the Fifth Amendment. But the office of the Director of Tax Exempt Organizations for the IRS does NOT have Fifth Amendment protection.
What this means is simply this – she (in her role as a government official) can be compelled to testify under oath but to compel her the congressional committee doing the questioning first must make it so that she (as a private citizen) would not be a witness against herself in this “criminal case” (these are the words from the Fifth Amendment).
This means that congress would have to grant her immunity from prosecution for her prior actions. If she cannot be convicted of a crime because of her immunity then all reason to not testify has been removed and then she can be compelled to testify just as you and I can be. I think there are two things at play here as to why congress hasn’t yet granted her immunity.
One, I do think congress is afraid of where this could lead and that is to impeachment of Obama, and two, I think there is some thinking in congress that they can get sworn testimony from other IRS officials that could also put Lerner in prison (without her testimony). Getting her testimony with immunity would speed up the process but in the end she would walk free. Denying immunity while getting others to provide the testimony she would provide with immunity would keep her from needing immunity and she could spend years in prison.
The Fifth Amendment does not relieve you of any crime you might have committed, it only protects you from being a witness against yourself in that crime. In other words, someone else testifies against Lerner and she still gets convicted. If I were Lerner I would be asking (make that begging) congress for immunity before she gets blind-sided by her colleagues. The bottom line here is that this is a crime of epic proportions and is very much impeachable for any participants including Obama if they can prove his involvement.
There are other and even more recent impeachable offenses including the current government shutdown. A shutdown in and of itself is probably not impeachable but there are many internal issues which probably are impeachable. Obama is using dictatorial powers (which he does not have) to declare that it is “my way or the highway” and this flies in the face of freedom in so many ways. Not only is he using dictatorial powers, but he is using them to defend an unconstitutional law. I have written extensively on this so I will not include it here.
Obama is trying to scare people by telling us of an impending default on our debt. I have written extensively on this as well but suffice to say that a default can only happen if Obama, and ONLY Obama, wants and allows it to happen. There is more than enough money to pay for defense and to service the national debt.
Personally I think that deliberately scaring the folks is a breach of trust of epic proportions and therefore an impeachable offense but I am probably in a minority with that opinion. However, if we actually do default on the national debt, as long as there is even one dollar in the treasury (and we have well over $2 trillion coming in every year), it will be an epic breach of the constitution and therefore an epic crime that can only be committed (and only allowed by) by Obama himself. Impeachable? Absolutely.
There are many more examples but the original thought was “what will it take to impeach Obama.” Again, the answer is an incredibly overwhelming amount of evidence. Obama will never be impeached like Clinton was. That was justified but in this case it would invoke a race war that might never stop. This means there must be more than that.
In my opinion we passed the required mark when Obama failed to even try to defend the United States when we were attacked in Benghazi. If it were up to me the impeachment would have already happened. It is not up to me, it is up to congress, and where their line is I don’t know. Keep in mind also that not only do you risk a race war that can destroy the country, but your case must be solid enough that the Senate (who supports Obama) will remove him from office or you will have risked a lot but for zero reward.