Is this the time to do it?



I have never done this before, just linking to an online piece.  The link dochere is transcript of testimony by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute before the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives.Obama-Oath_lightbox  It is enumeration of President Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional actions vis-a-vis rollout of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka PPACA aka ACA aka “Obamacare”.

obama4When received as an enumeration rather than ala carte snippets on so-called “news” programs week after week, it is both compelling and jaw-dropping.  Please click and read.



The “do it” of my title question is impeachment.  In January of 2014 at the opening of congress in the new year is it incumbent on the members of the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives to hold hearings on the matter?ellison

Should the segment of today’s “We the People” who revere liberty over tyranny, who respect the rule of law over the rule of the tyrannical, who understand the critical importance of the Constitution over nonlegal progressivism/liberalism, should we want the feet of Speaker Boehner held to such a fire?obama pinocchio  Should we wish during 2014 primaries season to have those who knew to what they were swearing with their oaths of office hary reidand actually meant it distinguished from those of both parties who had Pinocchio moments when swearing?

Despite the reality that impeachment proceedings, including the here-hoped-for trial in the Senate, would be in a race with the mid-term elections, would it be in America’s best interest to have said be the focus that it would surely be?  Would the proceedings preclude this Administration from distracting both We the People and so-called “news media” with NSA, IRS, CIA, “fast and furious”, and Benghazis?  Would it rivet focus on the truth that “Obamacare” is not, and can not, be the “law of the land”?


About these ads


Filed under America implodes, economics, law and jurisprudence

48 responses to “Is this the time to do it?

  1. I’ve long thought that Obozo’s actions warrant impeachment. There are two obstacles to success that I see as virtually insurmountable.

    First, in order to convict in the Senate, the entire process would have to be carried out before the new Congress is seated following next year’s mid-term elections, as such “unfinished business” can’t be carried over from one session of Congress to the next, and as long as Reid and the Dems control the Senate I don’t see a conviction as ever happening. Which means the entire process would have to be started again following the mid-terms. Conviction then would only be possible if the GOP keeps the House and takes the Senate.

    The second problem: if he’s successfully impeached and convicted, who then becomes Prez?

    Crazy Uncle Joe Biden.

    Obozo’s “insurance policy”. He knew what he was doing when he picked Crazy Uncle Joe.

    • I’ve previously not spoken of impeachment because, and only because, conviction in and by the Senate was impossible. If the House proceeded in January, while I’m still doubtful that conviction is possible, I think there’s an actual, albeit slight, chance.

      Further, I think it would put facts before a hugely-wide audience, and that some Democrats — those in the House, all facing re-election, and some Senators, likewise facing re-election — might side with indictment and, if it gets that far, conviction.

      If Republicans, then, gain majority in the Senate, and retain majority in the House, I’ll live with a lame-doofus Joe.

      • But again, the problem is that after the new Congress is seated in 2015, you’d have to start the entire process again, from scratch.

        New impeachment proceedings in the House, new conviction proceedings in the Senate IF the House votes a second time (actually the FIRST time for the new House) for impeachment.

        So doing it now would actually be a waste of time.

        There’s another aspect of realpolitick that also comes to my mind that can/will have a direct and major impact on the mid-terms: Obamacare.

        It is HUGELY unpopular, and the Dumbocrats made the mistake of kicking the employer mandate down the road for one year. Which means the rest — and most massive — round of employer cancellation notices will be hitting peoples’ mailboxes around October of next year… just weeks before the elections. Right along with the next round of notices of premium increases and benefit cuts issued to those with private insurance.

        I expect the outrage to be beyond measurement.

        But to have that particular outrage distracted by all the emotional garbage an impeachment produces would seem to me to be very counterproductive. PARTICULARLY since there’s virtually zero chance of conviction and removal from office. It would be something we constantly — and accurately — accuse the Left of doing: putting symbolism over substance.

        As Reagan put it, when your opponent is busy shooting himself in the foot, don’t interfere.

      • As always, BrianR, an insightful and inciteful input and counterpoint. And persuasive.

        I wonder whether, while conviction may well not be possible, a riveting trial laying out the tyrannical law breaking, all “Obamacare”, wouldn’t be a positive for America, both short and long term, and for Tea-Party-type Republicans in both primaries and the general.

        I believe that, like with the individual mandate having been delayed past the November 2012 election, the employer mandate is now (illegally) scheduled for January 2015, so AFTER the November 2014 general. The Administration has proved beyond just adept at distractions from Obamacare.

        Seems a weekly occurrence that we have another website or Middle-East or Iran or scandal or Justin Bieber or Duck Dynasty flareup to hog the news. Why would we expect different leading up to November, save THE TRIAL?

      • The employer mandate was supposedly delayed until Jan 2015, which just goes to show how little Obozo and the Dumbocrats really know about how the real world works.

        Open enrollment starts in October, and lasts to the middle of December. All they did was try to push the END of open enrollment past the elections… but it has no effect on the START of open enrollment. It can’t. How would they even do that? Peoples’ 2014 coverage ends on 31 Dec 2014, and needs to be replaced with something.

        And as you know, people receive their notifications a month or so BEFORE the start of open enrollment, usually in September… 2 months BEFORE the election. And THAT’S when everyone’s going to be getting the bad news, from their employers and/or insurance companies, about their employer plans being terminated, their premiums going up, their benefits being decreased, etc.

        It’s going to be a shitstorm.
        I can hardly wait.

  2. For what it’s worth, boys and girls, a new Gallup poll says that an all-time-record 72% of adult Americans say that the greatest threat to America’s future is “big government”. Among those identifying as Republican it’s 92%, among Independents 71%, and among Democrats 56%.

    The percentages for Republicans and Independents are also all-time highs. For Democrats the peak was late-2005 at 62%, I infer about the time that Bush (43) was being re-elected.

    I say that repeal of Obamacare — medicine and healthcare are gonna now be a trainwreck from which to recover regardless — still must be repealed.

    • Cream of Wheat

      In answer to your Title Question, an emphatic YES! In fact, long past time.

      George Will observes:
      “Congressional Republicans’ long-simmering dismay about Barack
      Obama’s offenses against the separation of powers became acute when events compelled him to agree with them that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could not be implemented as written. But even before he decreed alterations of key ACA provisions — delaying enforcement of certain requirements for health insurance and enforcement of employers’ coverage obligations — he had effectively altered congressionally mandated policy by altering work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform; and compliance requirements of the No Child Left Behind education law; and some enforcement concerning marijuana possession; and the prosecution of drug crimes entailing mandatory minimum sentences; and the enforcement of immigration laws pertaining to some young people.”

      Indeed, Our Royal Highness has taken unto himself the right, the authority, the power to “execute” (kill) rather than to faithfully execute the laws presented to him by Congress.

      HE HAS VIOLATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE – repeatedly, wantonly, and audaciously. Thank God His Holiness knows better than Congress (and certainly better than I) what is best for me!

      Unfortunately, I do not share Will’s hope that Congress has about had it to the degree that it will start to call Him on his usurpations.

      BrianR, you’re observation that CONVICTING the President is beyond reach. But as DrPete inferred, who said anything about WINNING.

      Let the indictment be presented; let the trial begin.

  3. It will take a pair bigger than exists in D.C. now to do the right thing, DrPete. It’s a fascinating discussion and I admire you for tackling it.

    The comment thread is like-wise educational. Thank you all.

    As Cream of Wheat said, “Let the indictment be presented; let the trial begin.”

  4. Hope you let us know the response, DrPete. Will it be crickets???

  5. Just posted on Facebook as Pete Stevens both the tweet and link to this blogpost.

    Just posted also on Facebook, this time as Libertythesinequanon, the same.

  6. In the last two hours this site has had 70 views per hour, and during that period there have been more than 7,500 views on Facebook. No impeachment yet.

  7. Well, drpete, guess I’ll chime in too. I’m with Brian on this one. He correctly identified the coming storm of public backlash when the cancellation notices start to arrive just before the 2014 mid-terms. If we thought that there was an uproar over individual policies being cancelled, it’ll be orders of magnitude worse when the employer policies start being cancelled. I contend that we should let that problem fester and wreak havoc on the dems before starting impeachment proceedings.

    I’m afraid that interjecting impeachment during the rebellion over employer policies being cancelling will have the effect of blunting both issues somewhat. After the full effect of the employer cancellations takes hold and we (hopefully) gain seats in the Senate, we may have a better chance of actually ousting Orectum. Actually gaining enough seats in the Senate to dump him is a really long shot, but not impossible, if the electorate is pissed off enough to vote Republican as punishment to dems for the ACA debacle.

    I think that the only thing that we disagree on is the timing. I’ve love to forever attach the “impeachment” tag to Orectum, even if we can’t get the Senate to remove him.

    I say wait ’till after the new Congress is seated.

    • When you comment, garnet92, I perk up and listen. When your comment is seconding the motion of BrianR from The Island, I stop in my tracks to pause and ponder.

      Okay, I paused and pondered. I have to be with Cream of Wheat on this one. Indict and try. Victory on this one can come without conviction . . . as long as We the (wagon-pulling) People have conviction . . . and a pair.

      • But again, that’s playing the Dem/socialist game of symbolism over substance.

        Further, once you impeach him and fail to convict, you CAN’T impeach him again in the new session of Congress for the same charges. Double jeopardy has attached.

  8. Cream of Wheat

    The impeachment isn’t about delaying the employer mandate – or the individual mandate – or the hardship provision; the impeachment is about lying and about VIOLATING THE OATH OF OFFICE.

    The items above, as well as countless others, will find themselves included in the Bill of Particulars. In addition to the score of sins itemized in DrPete’s link to the CATO publication, those quoted from George Will’s column in my post above will be among them.

    IMO, anyone running for office should go on record regarding his stance on whether this nation is a nation of laws or a nation ruled by anointed wise men.

    I think we all agree that removing the President from office is pretty much a fools errand. If fact, if we wait until after 2014, the process would leave him in office to nearly the end of his term anyway. So impeachment is more about forcing Congressmen to man up to THEIR responsibilities and take the legislating back into their own hands.

    Come to think of it, it is also about the voter taking personal responsibility for seeing to it that legislating and executing are in the hands of people who live up to their oath of office.

  9. Cream of Wheat / drpete, look, I am painfully aware of Obama’s many misdeeds, I’ve been writing about them since 2007; I doubt that there are any of which I’m unaware. In fact, here’s my latest (from Thursday):

    NO President ever was as deserving of impeachment as Barack Obama (and I’m an old guy, witnessed a bunch of them). We have no argument on that score. Like drpete, I’d even be willing to take my chances with Joe Biden (I’ve written about him too).

    The thing that I’m afraid of is: by instigating a full-blown impeachment push before the 2014 elections, we will: 1) take what I believe will be a hugely negative backlash against democrats for Obamacare (remember that they pushed it through without a single Republican vote – they OWN it), and 2) bring back a backlash against Republicans for instituting another impeachment process against a sitting democrat President (e.g. Clinton, revisited). Now, be aware that I’m not afraid of item 2 (the impeachment backlash) if it doesn’t detract from the anti-democrat, Obamacare tide that I believe will be sweeping additional Republican candidates into Congress.
    My whole argument against impeachment BEFORE the mid-terms is that it will insert additional static/fog/complications into what should be a massive public outcry against Obamacare, and as a result, doom democrats running for election or reelection.

    I’m weighing two alternatives: 1) we impeach, but can’t remove him, and likely reduce the number of seats we win in Congress, or 2) we wait, allow the massive outcry of employer plans being cancelled to fester and as a result, pick up additional seats and institute proceedings as soon as the new Congress is seated in January.

    Again, I’m not against impeachment (far from it), just the timing.

    • In this process, garnet92, the House Judiciary Committee makes the case and then the House in toto votes to indict or not indict. I picture — and maybe Cream of Wheat does as well, though I’ll not try to speak here for him — the Judiciary hearings as, say, 3-4 months long.

      During that time, we’ll have lengthy enumeration of charges, instances of the President violating his oath of office, violating the Constitution, and abusing power. I can picture a white board background listing them as brought forward. What we won’t have is 20-second sound bites, distractions hogging the news. Most of the charges will be about Obamacare. I would hope to see charges, e.g., those enumerated by Michael Cannon, raised one by one with witneses being asked whether or not the charge as stated reflects the facts, then whether or not said is “high crime or misdemeanor”? Based on testimony, items will or will not be added to the whiteboard. Low key, low confrontation, low volume, Sergeant Friday-ish (“Just the facts, ma’am).

      The hearings will provide context for the 2014 primary season. With Democrats already trying to distance themselves from Obamacare, this will provide any and all ammo our guys need for campaigning.

      I see all of this coming from tv screens while watchers receive insurance-cancellation notices in the mail.

  10. Who knows, drpete, you may be right – I was wrong once before – we’ll see.

  11. Someone, any one, every one – help me out here.

    If we keep trying to figure what will blunt what, etc will anything stop the Resident? V. Let Obamadon’tcare implode, start to ruin the economy and any little progress that has been made. Would such an implosion also achieve the ends desired?

    Sorry to be a doof, but the discussion is so good and I am torn now between the argument of these two ideas (assuming I rephrased them properly).

    I confess, I am not a political savvy humanoid. I just think what I think.

    • I claim intermediate intelligence, but scant savvy. Nothing I bring seems to dent the beltway balustrade.

      If I were sufficiently visionary, Mrs. AL, I’d have likely won that Megamillions the other night. Just to note, I didn’t.

  12. Well, again, I’m with Garnet on this one. Impeachment now would be, at best, a Pyrrhic victory. To repeat myself ad nauseum, it’s symbolism over substance.

    It would be, at best, a tactical victory but a massive strategic defeat when conviction fails in the Senate, the electorate’s attention is diverted from the Obamacare disaster, and the Dem/socialists do well in next year’s election as a result.

    As my old Armenian grandmother used to say, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Custer thought attacking the Indians at the Little Big Horn was a good idea, too. It didn’t turn out so well for him. Very brave and all, but futile, with catastrophic results.

  13. I cannot argue to even myself convincingly against BrianR and garnet92 . . . and, Mrs. AL, I hear crickets. I have again demonstrated my impotence.

  14. I have said the impeachment word again and again. Excuses came, it will fail in the Senate etc. etc… At the time I was sure the issue was not conviction, but focus by the public including the soap-opera-addicted LIV’s on the dirty details of Obama’s high-crimes and misdemeanors. But now the timing is perfect, not just to focus attention on an increasingly engaged voting citizenry — including the LIV’s — but the pressure that will mount from that oh-so-pissed-off voting public to convict. NOW is the right time, but the House is in the wrong place.

    • Great to have you weigh in here, AfterShock. I infer about 10 of the 435 members of the House would both agree with us and act on it if in a position, and maybe 5 of 100 in the Senate. Of the 535 in toto, I infer that, say, 25 would work to actually shrink what the U.S. Government is, does, and spends while the rest would range from wanting it to grow by a mere 10% per year to 100% per year.

      For most “serving” means personal power, enjoying the addiction to spending other people’s money, and exempting themselves from the tyranny they inflict on the rest of us.

  15. drpete, et al, my apologies for not participating in the debate, my son has come to Dallas to visit and I’ll be out of pocket ’till after Christmas. Keep up the good fight!
    Merry Christmas to all and to all a good fight!

  16. CW

    >>”Is this the time to do it?”

    Good question, drpete, and great debate. I’m hearing the word “impeachment” bounced around quite a bit these days. As others have brought up, I think impeachment can be politically problematic. On the other hand, by not holding Obama to account we run the risk of setting a precedent for the low standard of behavior we will tolerate from a president. I’m torn, to tell you the truth.

    And DrPete, you and your wife person travel safely. We need someone to visit with when we come to spring training in March — haha

  18. I received an email Saturday from the DNC via OFA on how to argue against impeachment if Republicans try it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s