The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Blah, Impeach, Blah, Blah

Posted on | August 21, 2010 | 65 Comments

by Smitty

iOwnTheWorld echoes a Jeffrey Kuhner editorial in the Washington Times about the need to impeach BHO:

If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should – and likely will – launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.

No, really, impeachment isn’t the only answer. For example, there is a Presidential election in 2012. Unless you’re going to argue that it’s all a farce, the fix is in, and the event will be a dog’n’pony, impeachment is not ‘the only’ answer.
More to the point, as I’ve argued elsewhere, BHO is more symptom than disease. Impeaching him might bring pleasure to some. That pleasure, along with $5, will still get you a beverage at Starbucks.

  • That Federal overreach problem would still exist in any case, as the SCOTUS pries the words “general welfare” far enough apart, like some vast python, to devour the entire body politic.
  • The Federal Reserve would still be easing vast quantities of suppository into a public orifice near you.
  • The Federal bureaucracy will remain. It, along with the lobbyists, write and administer the colostomy-bag-of-tricks that today we call “legislation”. They will continue wielding the Pen of Damocles in a way that will have you begging for the Sword.

I’ll double down.
The whole impeachment meme is a variation on Alinsky Rule 12. The entry level course would use personalize the opposition, and make them an example.
An advanced usage of Rule 12, call it 12.5, could be having a polarizing figure like BHO suck the oxygen out of the room. Long before Alinsky, there was chess. In chess, controlling tempo is crucial. Controlling the news cycle is the goal here. Accepting some damage on one flank might limit damage in a more vulnerable location. Say:

  • the economy
  • existing bankrupt entitlements
  • Constitutionality of new entitlements

There might be some temptation to think that an Alinsky Rule #9 threat of impeachment is helpful. Yuck. Real adults don’t play cheezy games. If the members of the Congress won’t support Impeachment, either for reasons of partisanship or a squishy case, then just forget it. Impeachment is not the sort of thing to try: it’s a ‘not-do’ until such a hypothetical time when a ‘do’ should arrive. Consider Blago before taking the eye off the ball.  Consider that Ryan’s Roadmap is the closest thing to a recovery strategy around, and where is the buy-in?
The last decade has seen both the consolidation of power in the Executive, and a continuous assault on whoever is in the Oval Office. In a whacky retro way, restoring Federalism and separation of powers is the answer, not impeachment.  Focus on the disease, not the symptoms, people.
Impeachment should join Birtherism and Is-he-Islamic-ism in the ‘blah, blah, blah’ bin.

Category: Barack Obama

Comments

65 Responses to “Blah, Impeach, Blah, Blah”

  1. Dandapani
    August 22nd, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

    Two words: armed insurrection.

  2. Randy Rager
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 2:31 am

    We’re not there yet. Hopefully, it will never be necessary.

  3. Randy Rager
    August 22nd, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

    We’re not there yet. Hopefully, it will never be necessary.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 6:29 am

    Randy,

    You write:

    “Obama will not be re-elected in 2012 unless the Republicans run another Crazy Cousin John. Cling to that one hope, because it’s all you’ve got.”

    I’m not sure why you think that I have any particular “hope” with respect to who wins or loses the next presidential election. I’m interested in the “horse race” aspects, and place about as much importance on the outcome as that way of looking at it justifies.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 2:29 am

    Randy,

    You write:

    “Obama will not be re-elected in 2012 unless the Republicans run another Crazy Cousin John. Cling to that one hope, because it’s all you’ve got.”

    I’m not sure why you think that I have any particular “hope” with respect to who wins or loses the next presidential election. I’m interested in the “horse race” aspects, and place about as much importance on the outcome as that way of looking at it justifies.

  6. Mick
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 11:53 am

    Quo Warranto in the DC District is the Constitutional avenue to remove an ineligible POTUS. BHO is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, no matter where he was born. His father was NEVER a citizen, much less at the time BHO was born, thus he was ADMITTEDLY subject to the jurisdiction of Britain at birth
    (he admits this at “Fight the Smears”.)
    Conservatives like you have unwittingly given cover to Obama’s eligibility. Youy blithely forgive an aggregious violation of A2S1C5, while at the same time purporting to be a Constitutionalist. The Founders warned against the bain of foreign influence on the POTUS.

  7. Mick
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 7:53 am

    Quo Warranto in the DC District is the Constitutional avenue to remove an ineligible POTUS. BHO is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, no matter where he was born. His father was NEVER a citizen, much less at the time BHO was born, thus he was ADMITTEDLY subject to the jurisdiction of Britain at birth
    (he admits this at “Fight the Smears”.)
    Conservatives like you have unwittingly given cover to Obama’s eligibility. Youy blithely forgive an aggregious violation of A2S1C5, while at the same time purporting to be a Constitutionalist. The Founders warned against the bain of foreign influence on the POTUS.

  8. smitty
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 12:14 pm

    Youy blithely forgive an aggregious violation of A2S1C5, while at the same time purporting to be a Constitutionalist.

    Unfair. I’m pointing out a bigger, century-long violation of the Constitution (Progressivism), not necking down to any specific line-item argument.
    Say what you want about potential lawsuits, the historical fact is that BHO was sworn in by the Chief Justice, and has operated with the approval of the entire Congress and Executive branch, occasional Army officers notwithstanding.

  9. smitty
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 8:14 am

    Youy blithely forgive an aggregious violation of A2S1C5, while at the same time purporting to be a Constitutionalist.

    Unfair. I’m pointing out a bigger, century-long violation of the Constitution (Progressivism), not necking down to any specific line-item argument.
    Say what you want about potential lawsuits, the historical fact is that BHO was sworn in by the Chief Justice, and has operated with the approval of the entire Congress and Executive branch, occasional Army officers notwithstanding.

  10. Mick
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 12:55 pm

    BHO’s coronation was the RESULT of Progresssivism’s creep. The fact is that Congress (both sides) are treasonous for allowing a Non Natural Born Citizen to pass the electoral college. Notice that Roberts supposedly did a mistake free oath in private, out of view of the public (he had no constitutional power to stop the swearing in). BOTH sides of the aisle seek to destroy the sovereignty of WE the people. John McCain (born in Colon, Panama) was not a Natural Born Citizen either, despite what they said in Resolution 511. Colon was not American controled territory, and McCain was born a Panamanian citizen (their constititution at the time granted birthright citizenship). No one born a dual citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. They also said McCain was a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were citizens, so what about Obama?
    A2S1C5 has never been ammended, and no act of congress, short of an ammendment can change it. It was designed to prevent foreign influence in the highest office and the CIC of the Armed forces. Obama is PRECISELY the kind of man that the clause was designed to estop. Do you see him as having the adequate attachment and alllegiance to this country? Obama’s kryptonite is staring you in the face, yet you, with a large readership, and platform, ignore such a gregious violation of the USC. Notice that their has been NO discussion of the FACT that Obama was at best a dual citizen at birth in the media. How can a British Subject at birth be a Natural Born Citizen of the US? WHERE does it say (SCOTUS or US Statute) that anyone, regardless of parentage, born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS (nowhere). I can show you 4 or 5 SCOTUS cases that define Natural Born Citizen as one born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents, including The Venus (1814), only 27 years after ratification of the USC, and with John Marshall on the panel, directly quoting Vattel’s Law of Nations.
    Another non Natural Born Citizen is waiting in the wings of the Republican party (Jindal was born in La. of Indian Immigrant resident alien parents).

  11. Mick
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 8:55 am

    BHO’s coronation was the RESULT of Progresssivism’s creep. The fact is that Congress (both sides) are treasonous for allowing a Non Natural Born Citizen to pass the electoral college. Notice that Roberts supposedly did a mistake free oath in private, out of view of the public (he had no constitutional power to stop the swearing in). BOTH sides of the aisle seek to destroy the sovereignty of WE the people. John McCain (born in Colon, Panama) was not a Natural Born Citizen either, despite what they said in Resolution 511. Colon was not American controled territory, and McCain was born a Panamanian citizen (their constititution at the time granted birthright citizenship). No one born a dual citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. They also said McCain was a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were citizens, so what about Obama?
    A2S1C5 has never been ammended, and no act of congress, short of an ammendment can change it. It was designed to prevent foreign influence in the highest office and the CIC of the Armed forces. Obama is PRECISELY the kind of man that the clause was designed to estop. Do you see him as having the adequate attachment and alllegiance to this country? Obama’s kryptonite is staring you in the face, yet you, with a large readership, and platform, ignore such a gregious violation of the USC. Notice that their has been NO discussion of the FACT that Obama was at best a dual citizen at birth in the media. How can a British Subject at birth be a Natural Born Citizen of the US? WHERE does it say (SCOTUS or US Statute) that anyone, regardless of parentage, born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS (nowhere). I can show you 4 or 5 SCOTUS cases that define Natural Born Citizen as one born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents, including The Venus (1814), only 27 years after ratification of the USC, and with John Marshall on the panel, directly quoting Vattel’s Law of Nations.
    Another non Natural Born Citizen is waiting in the wings of the Republican party (Jindal was born in La. of Indian Immigrant resident alien parents).

  12. smitty
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 10:14 pm

    @Mick,
    With a Congress passing multi-ream, unread legislation, your point is the soul of pedantic.
    IOW, I don’t support putting significant effort into chasing Birthirism on any level.
    For lower hanging fruit, start with school records.

  13. smitty
    August 23rd, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

    @Mick,
    With a Congress passing multi-ream, unread legislation, your point is the soul of pedantic.
    IOW, I don’t support putting significant effort into chasing Birthirism on any level.
    For lower hanging fruit, start with school records.

  14. Mick
    August 24th, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

    And you continue to ignore the Treason of both sides of the aisle (probably because you are to invested in the R “team” and get roped into the same old distractions of Party). Unbelieveably you have Obama’s Kryptonite directly in front of you, and you rail against him yet refuse to use the tool to remove him.
    Maybe you have been told to shut up? or threatened? or are you afraid of the well crafted “Birther” epithet?

  15. Mick
    August 24th, 2010 @ 11:39 am

    And you continue to ignore the Treason of both sides of the aisle (probably because you are to invested in the R “team” and get roped into the same old distractions of Party). Unbelieveably you have Obama’s Kryptonite directly in front of you, and you rail against him yet refuse to use the tool to remove him.
    Maybe you have been told to shut up? or threatened? or are you afraid of the well crafted “Birther” epithet?