Impeach Obama

If Nixon, or Bush 43 were discovered to have granted themselves the imperial power to sweep away the rule of law and order the murder of American citizens–without evidence, arrest, trial, judge, jury, verdict or any form of civil protection on the basis of the President’s tyrannical will alone–the outcry would be greater than the hysteria over Clinton’s sex life.

But because Obama is the doyen of the Left (which, truth be told, thinks democracy is kind of a pain since it lets all those trailer park dwellers have as much a say in who shovels them around like concrete and experiments on them as Really Smart[TM] Harvard-educated Technocrats) the Left is silent and because the Right (which gave us the Patriot Act, expanded the Police State, and thinks Obama’s assassination policies are the only part of the War on Terror that are really kinda cool) the Right remains strategically quiet as well. So nobody says much when somebody leaks the Obama “rules” for murdering Americans in cold blood when our God King thinks they they need killin’.  Obama was a little worried for a time that the lawless power to slaughter who he pleases on his omnipotent will alone might fall into the wrong hands (i.e., Romney’s) and not remain in the hands of the Truly Enlightened.  But with his election secure, he is now back to confidently betraying his oath of office.

In a just world, this would be *ample* grounds for impeachment: far, far, far, more consequential then Clinton’s sleazy antics.  In our depraved politics though, neither party will do much, because at the end of the day, both parties covet the expansion of tyrannical power over the rest of us more than they care about the rule of law.  One day, that will come to a head and will be used by some practiced pol whose seared conscience has been burnished to a lustrous sheen, first to rub out political opponents (as “dangerous terrorists” of course), and then to establish as de facto what Obama has already made de jure: the tyrannical domination of the formerly free people of America by a Caesar who can ignore the rule of law and impose terror on all opposition without any consequence to himself.  Unless we resist.

Every American who cares about the rule of law and remaining safe from a lawless and tyrannical state should face and resist this.

  • Matt

    … so it’s OK to talk about secession THEN, right?

    • S. Murphy

      No, they’ll get you with a drone. ;-}
      Impeachment is a Constitutional solution. I don’t care what people *talk* about (although Mark has an absolute right to address what he’ll allow in his comboxes); but there are a lot of things we should be doing, as citizens, before wishing for the dissolution of the republic.

    • Mark Shea

      Don’t be stupid.

    • Chris M

      You can say that again.

  • http://mondayevening.wordpress.com/ Marcel

    The solution is clear. The rich must pay their fair share to support this lawless tyranny.

  • Gail Finke

    I thought Bush should have been impeached when he was doing all that warrantless wiretapping, which seems to me to be a clear abuse of presidential power (as Iunderstand it, that is the only grounds for impeachment — the Clinton thing was a farce). This is far worse.

    Impeachment means a trial in the Senate, not being deposed. So yes, presidents have been impeached.

    • Mark Shea

      No argument from me. Bush should have been impeached too.

      • “joe”

        yes he should have.
        but so should obama.

    • Blog Goliard

      There were plenty of legitimate, even compelling, reasons to impeach President Clinton.

      It was the particular genius of the Republican Congress to seize upon a few of the weakest and most easily-defended of them, and use those as the lever to try to eject the Big He from office.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        I think that’s more accurate than most takes of the story I hear.

  • rachel

    This is exactly what I was trying to raise awareness on my FB page last year. I thought it was appalling that we were using drone strikes in countries we are not at war with against a nebulous “enemy” who may not have been terrorists at all. It is sick. Of course this is the logical progression. Forget the HHS mandate and all the other stuff. Sure, that’s important too but this is the reason why Obama needs to be impeached but I heard ZERO ZERO discussion about this anywhere in the Catholic Media. No bishop spoke out against using drones on people in foreign countries. I heard NO sermon. Nope. All I heard was that we had to vote for the idiot Romney due to the HHS mandate. Seriously?? Are we really pro-life?? If we actually were, the Church would speak out against the use of drones without ANY due process but of course the Church will stay silent as they have done on the issue of indefinite detention, warrant-less wiretapping, etc. I am referring to the Church in the USA of course. We know that the HHS mandate was a political ploy to shore up Obama’s base so he would get re-elected. Its an issue that will drag itself out in the courts. The Church is completely silent on this issue and I’m angry. We always talk about being pro-life but that apparently only applies to un-born babies and old people (the abortion and euthanasia issue). Of course I’m not saying those aren’t important issues but I believe that voting ONLY on one issue has blinded many conservatives to the horror of these other issues. I sincerely believe that Romney would have furthered the use of drones too since he was on record approving the program so getting him elected would not have mattered. What does matter is that we need to fight against this. Speak out against the use of drones, without due process. If the Church does not do this, then we don’t have a moral leg to stand on.

    • Subsistent

      Regarding Catholic bishops: That ain’t the way I heerd it. I’ve read where the bishops of Rome John Paul and Benedict, as well as other Vatican spokesmen, have objected repeatedly to the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the USCCB has objected in the same sense. As for sermons, seems to me they’re hardly the place for that, since ordinary workaday or retired little guys like us can hardly do much about it apart from prayer — altho I sure can’t blame a former misionary in Pakistan, traumatized by what the American military has been doing to his beloved people, in his repeatedly mentioning it in sermons, as he’s done at the church I attend.

    • Glenn

      We need to stop using the word drones when describing what’s taking place. They are air strikes by US military aircraft (or those operated by the Intelligence Community), flown by US pilots who happen to not be co-located with the aircraft. IOW, the only difference between an F-16 dropping a precision-guided bomb/missile onto a suspected terrorist and an MQ-9 (aka, a “drone”) doing the same, is the location of the pilot. In the former, the pilot is in the airplane, over the foreign country where the strike is taking place, and in the latter, the pilot is (typically) located in Nevada. And *that* is the key difference and the primary motivation of using “drones” for these strikes: if the aircraft is shot down, the pilot is not killed or captured.

      It also makes it a whole lot easier to commit unconstitutional or illegal actions and not be taken to task by media, your political opponents or those who are supposed to be enforcing the law.

  • ivan_the_mad

    I was both surprised and encouraged to hear NPR report on it this morning in a less than positive light. They have an article on their site as well: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/05/171143597/broader-justification-emerges-of-when-u-s-can-kill-americans-who-join-al-qaida

  • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

    Amen. Impeach Obama, and start war crimes prosecutions for Bush/Cheney. In the more likely event that Obama is not impeached, perhaps we can just have a nice bipartisan war crimes trial for both Obama and Bush (and their administration enablers).

    • Blog Goliard

      A trial of either President (and their henchmen) for war crimes would be more partisan wish-fulfillment than an exercise in the rule of law.

      Not even Nuremberg was an exercise in the rule of law. It was important enough to us to document Nazi atrocities–and specifically, in the form of a trial so we would be able to hang some Nazis at the conclusion of it–that we were willing to overlook this. (Maybe rightly, maybe wrongly; I’m of two minds about it myself.)

      In the case of our present wars, and our contemporary leaders, our only remedy under the law is impeachment.

      • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

        Agreed about Nuremberg–and about the dangers of partisan wish fulfillment. However, doesn’t torture violate the Geneva Conventions, IIRC? It would seem that being tried for violation of a properly ratified treaty obligation would be more lawful than some of the post-hoc stuff at Nuremberg. But this is not my area of expertise at all, and I (as usual) welcome any correction you might have to offer.

        • Blog Goliard

          The Geneva Convention treaties were designed to protect members of one signatory nation’s regular armed forces, when they are taken as prisoners of war by a different signatory nation’s regular armed forces, in the course of a declared war between nations, being fought more or less in accordance with traditional generally-accepted rules of war.

          I don’t believe any of the people detained at Gitmo or elsewhere, of whom we are speaking when torture in the “War on Terror” is debated, fit into this framework or qualify for its protections in any sense (nor does the overall, many-faceted conflict itself fit into the legal framework). That does not, of course, mean it is right to torture them. It does, however, make it impossible to use the Geneva Convention to hold anyone accountable for such torture.

          Nor is the Constitution any help really, at least unless the detainee is a United States Citizen…and maybe not even then. Consider the case of the Nazi saboteurs, for instance. (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/nazi-saboteurs) The captured men were tried by a military commission, and six of them promptly executed…including one who held American citizenship.

  • Harpy

    The biggest problem with impeachment is that it leaves us with Biden as President….

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      The two words “President Biden” have functioned as a shield for Obama for both impeachment and assassination since he was sworn in in 2008. Even a good number of the loons know enough to fear Biden in the Oval Office.

  • Andy

    A serious question – I had it when Bush was president and the torture stuff became public, and I have it with Obama – as I understand High Crimes and … is what impeachment is based on. If the Justice Department says that it is OK to torture or to use drones to kill Americans – is it a high crime? I do not know the answer – it seems that the Justice Department is there to “prevent” crimes in the executive and other parts of the government and country. So is there a lawyer with enough Constitutional knowledge to explain that to me? What constitutes an impeachable offense?

    • Blog Goliard

      “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are, basically, whatever a majority of the Congress agrees are grounds serious enough to remove someone from office.

      We’re not really dealing with the judicial system here. The Justice Department, the Federal courts, Federal statutes and regulations…none of it is controlling. It’s an essentially political, only quasi-legal, process; a struggle between co-equal branches of Government. According to long-standing precedent (the “political question” doctrine), the Supreme Court stays completely out of such contests whenever possible.

      • Andy

        Thank you for your response. Bear with me as I ponder at the keyboard – it strikes me then this political process is really there to look “good” – the limit to remove a person is quite high as I understand it – the impeachment – that is bringing the charges is low? So the idea that Obama or Bush being impeached is high – but that removal is low – if this is true why bother? I look at the Clinton fiasco and wonder at the cost, the destruction of faith in the government and the like. I am not giving either Obama a pass – I am concerned about a process that is inherently going to be flawed being used for much of anything.

        • Blog Goliard

          The most important reason to begin impeachment proceedings is to demonstrate that there are certain things a President must not be allowed to do…and for certain types of tyrannical overreach, impeachment is the only remedy available that is both lawful and even remotely practicable. If this ultimate check on the Executive power is not used in response to something as egregious as a “kill list” with American citizens on it, then it might as well not exist at all, and we’re one step closer to unchecked elected tyranny.

          The most important reason to refrain from impeachment proceedings is that there is a cost to doing so, both foreseen (i.e. a reprise of some of the most ugly after-effects of the Clinton fiasco) and unforeseen, both short- and long-term; and given the current membership of Congress and general worldview and habits of both major parties, the chance of ultimate success–or even of marginal benefit along the way to failure–is infinitesimal.

          It’s not an easy decision, in my view.

          • Andy

            I agree this is a decision point loaded with problems. I know that impeachment can act as a check on one branch or the other – and I am not in any way endorsing a kill list. I fear that the already fractured state of our country will grow greater. I do not in my heart of hearts believe that a greater fracture serves us well.
            I do not think that removal is even a slight possibility, and for the house to impeach Obama on pure party vote is a disaster in the making. I am at a loss. Thank you for your responses though.

            • Blog Goliard

              Can’t disagree with any of that, really.

              I’m glad for the thoughtful discussion as well…thank you.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        The Chief Justice presides at the President’s trial in the Senate so the SC can’t really stay clear, can it?

        • Blog Goliard

          I was speaking of the Court as a decision-maker, exercising its own authority in interpreting the Constitution and laws.

          The Chief Justice does not serve this function at an impeachment trial; he’s instead there as a neutral presiding officer, guiding the proceedings according to whatever rules the Senate has agreed on. A Chief Justice possessed of sufficient skill, wisdom, and restraint (as Rehnquist was) can and will manage that role in a way that makes his “day job” on the United States Supreme Court irrelevant for all but ceremonial reasons.

  • Linda C.

    IIRC, one reason the Clinton impeachment vote went the way it did is that FBI agents were said to have visited a number of senators, “offering” to release their FBI files unless the vote allowed the president to stay in office. If this is true, it would be a fail-safe system to ensure that, in practical terms, no sitting president could be removed from office.

    While it is true that the kill list is grounds for impeachment, or would be in a rational world, the sad truth is that the current POTUS will never be impeached. No. Matter. What. He. Does. Nor will any other.

    • Blog Goliard

      Why use a rumor like that to explain the vote? No Senate Democrat was ever going to vote for conviction, nor some of the Republicans (Jeffords and Specter, for instance, who later became Democrats); and it would have taken every Republican and 12 of the Democrats to remove Clinton from office.

      And besides…if such threats were a true “fail-safe system”, Richard Nixon would have been able to save himself. (Because he surely wouldn’t have hesitated to try such a stunt…)

  • Loud

    See? See? The right DOSE talk about it. I hear aboutthis everywhere, just not from the ELITE Right. You need at least a few of the ruling class to get ANY significant attention…. which is why Im so stinkin angry that we havent kicked out the faux “pro-lifers” in office. Yes, it is true that first and formost comes the lives of children, but is any born child safe when being alive and walking makes them potential “terrorists”? Potential “colatteral damage”?

  • enness

    Thanks for reminding me yet again that you’re “nobody” if not a politician or pundit. *sigh*

  • Lou

    My question is why hasn’t this already been started? Every single person I talk to would vote to impeach Obama what hold does he have on the republicans? We can’t sit placid anymore the country as we knew it is gone.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X