If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
“WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE” TO REMOVE OBAMA FROM OFFICE?
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2014
(Jun. 16, 2014) — What, pray tell, will it take to prompt the House of Representatives to impeach the sitting usurper of the presidency?
Another assassination of a Border Patrol officer outside Brownsville by an MS13 gang-banger allowed into the country along with the flood of children responding to the regime’s promises of amnesty, festooned by Joe Biden’s lunatic meme that the nation’s future depends on a “constant, unrelenting stream of immigrants?” Or perhaps the release from prison of the blind sheikh, Omar Abdul-Rahman, as a “goodwill gesture” to mollify al-Qaeda and ISIS? Or perhaps a 2014 replay of the helicopter evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad à la Saigon in 1975?
No, wait… we left four Americans behind in Benghazi in 2012, so what sense would it make for the regime to abandon a policy that has been ratified by The New York Times? I mean, after all, at this point in time… what difference would it make?
If you think any of these hypotheticals are beyond the pale, think again. Remember, you were also once told that if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor and that this would be the most transparent administration in history. To them, “transparent” means “opaque.” Have you not read up on “doublespeak?”
Memo to the electorate: the inmates are now running the asylum. And if something is not done soon to rein them in – impeachment of the president would be a good start – there will no longer be an asylum to run at all and, perish the thought, no longer a nation to flood with illegal immigrants to whom amnesty might be awarded and to whom wealth transfers from the producers to the non-producers might be accelerated. We can’t have that happen, can we?
The sad aspect of what we now see unfolding along the southern border and inland, along the road from Mosul to Baghdad, and in the halls of Congress is a disengagement from reality by the folks who swore to defend and uphold the Constitution and, in the case of the Usurper-in-Chief under Art. II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed….”
When a usurper/pretender to the office of the president becomes obsessed with ensuring that only some of the laws he/she deems worthy of enforcement are to be obeyed and refuses to “take care” that other, disfavored laws are enforced (e.g., laws requiring the integrity and protection of the nation’s borders or laws forbidding the giving of aid and comfort to the nation’s enemies), how can such behavior be seen – other than through the demented, concave lenses of The New York Times editors’ pince nez – as anything other than, at minimum, a “high crime or misdemeanor” invoking the mechanism of impeachment under Art. II, Sec. 4 of the Constitution?
Lamentably, the real miscreants here are those who voted the squatter at 1600 into the office to begin with… and, adding insult to injury, not once, but twice (giving the Democrats the benefit of the doubt that rampant voter fraud in the “swing states” did not play a role in the 2012 fiasco).
One is reminded of the Internet-generated comment attributed (probably erroneously) to Vaclav Klaus, former (legitimate) President of the Czech Republic: “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.”
The quote more likely came from an editorial in the Czech newspaper Prager Zeitung, but the source is unimportant. The value of the quote lies in its insight and laser-like accuracy. We have no one to blame here but ourselves (again, giving the Democrats the benefit of the doubt as to electoral integrity).
Accordingly, the House of Representatives now has the opportunity – and more and more Americans would argue, the duty – to prepare Articles of Impeachment and vote them out of the House and over to the Senate. Then let us see what the usurper’s perpetual apologist and enabler – Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) – does. Will he even bring the bill to the floor?
If he does not, will the electorate take its wrath out on all Senators up for reelection in November? If Reid allows the bill a hearing and a trial is held, with Chief Justice Roberts presiding, will the Senate convict, thereby bringing to and end this five-year catastrophe and averting an even more cataclysmic balance of term? And if the Senate does not convict, will the electorate again vent its wrath upon the Senate in November?
As is sometimes observed: “May you live in interesting times.”