How to handle the principled scoundrel in the White House

Last night, I had a dream in which I walked up to Obama and, a la a 19th Southern gentleman, slapped him across the face and called him an “unprincipled scoundrel.”  If it was only that easy.

Think about it:  In 1994, American voters, fed up with Clinton’s and Congress’ pull to the Left (a pull that seems remarkably mild in retrospect), threw the Democrats out of Congress, and installed the Republicans and their “Contract With America.”  Bill Clinton may have been a Leftist but, first and foremost, he was an opportunist who desperately craved approval.  With a new Congress installed, he began to work with them.  If the American voters wanted conservatism, by God, that’s what they would have (although he’d dress it up to his advantage).  His Leftist principles instantly yielded to his overriding need to be liked.

People are expect the same in 2010.  American voters, fed up with Obama’s and Congress’ radical pull to the Left, will throw the Democrats out of Congress and install Republicans in their place.  These Republicans, if they have any principles and decency, will immediately repeal the laws enacted by the Democratic Congress — ObamaCare, DISCLOSE, Cap & Trade, etc.

But wait, there’s more, and the American people won’t like it:  Unless the laws are passed by a veto-proof majority, the president can, well, veto them.  Unfortunately, there’s no way in Hell that the 2010 elections, no matter how good they are for Republicans, will result with a veto-proof majority.  The best that will happen is a simple majority.  This means that, no matter what Congress does, Obama can send it all back.

And this is where we get to the fact that I think Obama is a “principled” scoundrel.  Much as he craves adulation, what Obama really wants to do is (a) socialize America and (b) knock her down several pegs.  He already knows he’s a one term president, he clearly hates being president (except for the golf and the parties), and he has proven time and time again that he has nothing but disdain (and even outright dislike) for conservatives, both inside and outside of Washington.  Nothing, absolutely nothing, will motivate him to work with a Republican Congress, or to listen to the American people, and it will be a cold day in Hell before he lets the American people’s Congress repeal his beloved America-destroying legislation.

It seems to me that, if my prediction proves true, the only way to deal with Obama is to drive him from office, not with pitchforks and torches, of course, but with legal methods:  he needs to be impeached. Here, in its entirety is the Constitution’s guidance on the subject (from Art. II, Section 4):

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I have one word:  Blagojevich.  I think Congress should also put pressure on Obama to reveal his birth certificate.  And no, I don’t believe it will show he was born in Kenya.  I just suspect it has something embarrassing in it, or else he wouldn’t be working so hard to hide it, and it would be kind to apply that kind of pressure to Obama.

Feel free to include in the comments here a list of credible offenses Obama has committed during his time in office that you believe would justify a legitimate move to impeach him.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • garyp

    Well, how about violating his oath of office:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    On the contrary, he has done his best to gut the Constitution.

    On a lighter note, I wrote the following after seeing Gov. Brewer’s new ad on border security.

    My musical (and singing ability) is pretty weak, but I may try to YouTube this.  However, anyone can feel free to record it (or modify it, as necessary, I won’t be offended).

    THE AZ BORDER SONG:

    Barack was a Marxist boy, his tongue as smooth as polished steel,
    He hid his hate for the USA,
    But all the honest world could see,
    Barack met his match you know, in November 2-0-1-0,
    Everyone voted for his foes, ah, but that’s the way it goes.
    All the Federales say, don’t close the border any day,
    They only let them cross this way, out of kindness I suppose.
    Lefties, they want the red, white and blue in the dust with me and you,
    But the dust from the desert South will end up in the Lefties mouths,
    The day we vote the rascals out, Barack will have to know,
    His days as president will go, the way of all our foes.
    All the Federales say, We’ll close the border some day,
    They only let them cross this way, out of kindness I suppose.
    The boys tell how ol’ Barack fell, the Lefties all just went to hell,
    The desert’s quiet, the border’s closed,
    And so, our nation beats its foes,
    Barack needs your scorn it’s true, but save a bunch for lefties too,
    We gotta do what we got to do, and now the story’s told.

    All the Federales say, don’t close the border any day,
    The border has to stay this way, out of kindness I suppose.
    All the red Federales say, we don’t believe in laws, no way
    We only let them act this way, out of silliness I suppose.

    Sometimes, ridicule is the best response…

  • SADIE

    I can’t even hum, let alone sing.
     
    Failure to protect and defend our borders by obstruction and using the DOJ to do his biding  by seeking to overturn both the Arizona Law and the ruling by judge in La.  as well as failure to prosecute Black Panthers in Philadelphia.

  • garyp

    Please Note:  I just noticed that I had followed the original song a little too closely.  In the first line, I should have changed “boy” to “man.”

    I am sure that some of our betters will use this to call this a “racist” song.  It is not.  The only humans I am prejudiced against are the ones that want to turn our country into a third-world dictatorship and the majority of those people are white (and well educated, and living well on public sector salaries).

    Sorry to make such a stupid mistake.

  • SADIE

    Sorry to make such a stupid mistake.
     


    A common catch phrase that has been repeated several thousand times since he was elected.
     
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    He actually is a boy, not a man.

  • jj

    I’ll say this for the 11,000th time.
     
    It isn’t – and never was, for those of us in the real world – about his birth certificate.  Let’s stipulate: he was born in the Lincoln bedroom of the White House, JFK and LBJ both witnessed the birth.  Okay?
     
    The problem is, when he was born, in August of 1961, the law stated that someone born to a US citizen and a foreign national (Daddy was Kenyan) is ONLY a natural born citizen if the US citizen half of the parental pair was (a) natural born themselves (herself, in this case), and (b) had lived in the US continuously for five years after the age of 16.  (They believed in adults making decisions about important stuff like “what country do I live in?” back in those quaint days.)
     
    16 + 5 = 21.  Mama Obama was 19 when he was born.  Ergo, no one cares what his birth certificate says: he is NOT a natural born US citizen.  Period.  The Constitution, that outmoded pain in everyone’s ass, says that he therefore cannot be president.  The law says that he in fact is not a citizen at all, unless he was naturalized.  Which, his mother being a 19 year old idiot, we can all be quite certain he wasn’t.  (In 10,000 years it wouldn’t have occurred to her that it might be necessary.)  Ergo – he probably – to this day – isn’t officially a US citizen at all.  (For no nefarious reason – just generalized nit-wittery.  What 19 year old thinks of this stuff?)
     
    The law at the time is easily findable at Findlaw – just look for the requirements for US citizenry at the time of his birth – the law changed in 1975, so his birth year is important.  (He’s fine under the 1975 rules – regrettably, he was born in 1961.)
     
    The “birthers” have rocks in their heads – where he was born is not in the least relevant to his real problem – and there is a very real problem.  Which problem, it should be noted, the democrat party has so far successfully deflected into this birth certificate nonsense.  The certificate DOES NOT MATTER.  The law at the time of his birth (in the Lincoln bedroom – see stipulation above) does.
    But, when has the law ever mattered to democrats?
     
     

  • http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu Rhymes With Right

    Last night, I had a dream in which I walked up to Obama and, a la a 19th Southern gentleman, slapped him across the face and called him an “unprincipled scoundrel.”
     
    Uh-oh, Books — I can already see the liberal spin on this one.  “So, your a racist neo-Confederate who wants to assault an uppity black man.”

  • http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu Rhymes With Right

    jj — you are dead wrong on your assertions.  Let’s clarify the matter for you.
     
    1) According to his biography, Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. Let’s assume for the moment that this information is correct. Given that Hawaii had been a state for just under two years at that time, it is beyond dispute that Barack Obama was born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a natural born citizen of the United States and the state of Hawaii, based upon the clear language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.</p>

    2) But what of the purported statutory language cited by these bloggers which would seem to argue to the contrary? </p>

    <blockquote>’. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.'</blockquote>

    First, such language would be constitutionally invalid on its face if it were applied to anyone born within the United States. And secondly, unfortunately for those who attempt to use it to cast shadows upon the citizenship of Barack Obama, the statute in question never purported to apply to those born on American soil. Instead, it applied only children of American citizens born abroad.</p>

    >But let’s look at <a href=”http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=51&amp;Itemid=44“>the actual statutory language</a> of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b):</p>

    <blockquote>Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;</p>

    </p><center>* * *</center><br>
    <br>
    (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.</blockquote>

    So you can see that by virtue of birth in Hawaii, the statute recognizes Obama as a citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The question of his parentage only comes into question if Barack Obama were born outside the United States.</p>

  • SADIE

    jj
    I am having a blond at birth moment …
     
    Did not Mama O and baby O live in Hawaii continuously for 5 years? To be honest, I don’t remember what age baby O moved to Indonesia with Mama O and step daddy- O.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    People are expect the same in 2010.

    let me take a guess. You meant are expecting, yes?
     
    Html doesn’t work under this editor. You have to either format in Real visual editor and paste it or use the built in tools.

  • http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu Rhymes With Right

    Discovered that the hard way.

  • Al

    There is no question we need to get a veto proof majority in both Houses. It seems like a daunting task. In 1994 the public, as I recall, was upset with the Congressional bank scandel, and the insurance companies were running ads saying healthcare was in danger. But there was not the general perception that the electorate was as upset as the voting demonstrated. Now we have a really energized electorate. One of the problems I see is that many companies seem to want to play ball with Obama, a la the industrialists in Germany in the 1930s. After seeing what BP is enduring, hopefully they will get the message and come out swinging in ads defending the concepts of private property and free markets. If the business community starts singing the same tune as the Tea Partyers, we could pull this off. As a positive sign is this direction, check out the video clip of Steve Winn at today’s AT. It’s a mildly subdued rant.
     
    And Garyp, what is the tune you’re singing to?
    Al

  • SADIE

    Two quick thoughts and not mutually exclusive of one another:
    1) He wallows in being the minority – it’s underdog or he has no dog in the fight.
    2) He is has no intention of heeding advice from this Summit.
     
     
    The deficit-cutting goal was outlined in a final statement from the top 20 industrial and developing nations at their weekend summit. The Associated Press obtained a copy before its official release.
    Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, host of a summit, said it was critical that the countries “send a clear message that as our stimulus plans expire, we will focus on getting our fiscal houses in order.”
    The deficit pledge would mean cutting the red ink in half within three years and getting total debt stabilized by 2016.
     
    But in the discussions in Canada, it was clear that Obama’s view was in the minority as country after country stressed the need to reduce deficits.

  • SADIE

    p.s. and another point. This is where we need to begin the campaign and to make it clear that ‘dear leader’ is out of step with America, out of step with reality, out of step with the needs of the economy and in lieu of bowing to foreign dictators, he should be bowing to the needs of the voters.



     

  • SADIE

    I’ve been holding this article since March and I am in a really foul mood and can’t rant anymore.
     
    The key accountability votes are five, and this is the information that needs to accompany every November target list:
    á Did the incumbent vote for Nancy Pelosi for House speaker?
    á Did the incumbent vote for the “stimulus” package?
    á Did the incumbent vote for “cap-and-tax”?
    á Did the incumbent vote for Obamacare?
    á Did the incumbent vote to protect the assault on the Constitution known as the “deem scheme” or “Slaughter Solution” when it was first challenged March 18 by Rep. Parker Griffith?
    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/What-the-NRCC-needs-to-do-now-88770027.html#ixzz0ivDihWae

  • vanderleun

    I regret, I deeply regret, that based upon the above discussion there’s nothing that rises to the level of an impeachable offense — especially when you reflect that it must be voted in the House (simple majority) and tried and convicted in the Senate (two-thirds).
     
    Isn’t going to happen. Depend upon it.
     
    This is drilling a dry hole.
     
    Dig where the gold is.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    But that’s the question, isn’t it, vanderleun?  Where is the gold?  What leverage does a simple Republican majority have to prevent Obama from vetoing everything Congress does in an effort to repeal the current Congress’ excesses?

  • Pingback: » Links To Visit – 06/27/10 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter()

  • Mike Devx

    I agree with Vanderleun, there is no politically possible impeachment offense.  Bookworm’s question remains, however, and the answer is: If Obama is hellbent on his agenda to the point of committing political suicide, you can’t stop him from performing his vetoes.
     
    Therefore, 2010 is the year we simply stop the harm, stop the bleeding.  2012 is the year the rebirth and repair begins.  You are looking at it as Obama thwarting us in 2010-2012.  I look at it as a Republican Congress thwarting Obama and the worst of the far-left Democrats.
     
    Besides, it may still be possible that Obama seeks power, primarily, not agendas.  Though it is clear agendas are high on his list, he *might* at his core seek power even more.  In that case, he may abandon some or all of the agenda items.
     
    Without the simple majority, the Democrats can’t enact their Slaughter Rules.  Pelosi can’t “pass this bill so we can find out what is in it”, because she will no longer be Speaker.  Dodd won’t be able to say “No One Will Know Until It’s Actually In Place How It Works”,
    as he said about the financial reform bill he AUTHORED (!!!) because such outrageous malfeasance and irresponsibility in crafting and passing bills will not occur under the Republicans.
     
    So, in 2010, we stop the bleeding we see now in this thoroughly corrupt, incompetent Congress.  In 2012 we begin rebuilding under a new President.
     
     

  • Mike Devx

    I say the above, because I personally do not see 2010 as a pivotal ELECTION.  I see the coming decade as a pivotal period covering three or four elections, and the entire set of elections is what I see as pivotal.  The entire entitlement system enacted throughout the 20th Century, accelerated in its latter years, must be repudiated over what I call “the election cycle” of three to four elections.
     
    It can begin in 2010, it can begin in 2012.  Far better for it to begin earlier.  But is 2010 pivotal itself?  I just don’t believe so.  Especially because I believe the GOP, on the whole, is not yet ready to assume leadership.  If all we do is put the same old corruptocrats in power, but this time on the GOP side, nothing will change.
     

  • pst314

    Who ordered the DOJ to drop the prosecution of those Black Panther thugs who engaged in armed intimidation of voters and poll workers while shouting racist threats and insults? Was it Obama himself? That sounds like grounds for impeachment.

  • vanderleun

    “Who ordered the DOJ to drop the prosecution of those Black Panther thugs…”
    On the record it was Holder. And even if it was at the behest of Obama it does not contain one  grain of soil from which to build grounds for impeachment. Stop with the fantasies already.

  • vanderleun

    In addition, it is incumbent on good citizens to reflect on whether or not another attempt at impeaching a sitting president is good for the country.
    My sensors say no.

  • Gringo

    garyp: I enjoyed your takeoff on “Pancho and Lefty.”  I am not a great fan of straight ahead C&W- Western Swing is more to my taste- but that has long been one of my favorite songs. Townes Van Zandt had a way with words. I doubt you could get Willie to sing your version, as he is a bit of a blue dogger. How about Wierd Al Yankovic, though I doubt he would do political songs: no need to alienate half your potential customer base. You better do it yourself.
     
    Impeachment is a waste of time, as there is no way you can get two thirds to vote for it. I also doubt it is a good thing to put the country through.  This reminds me of the Democratic parrying at prosecution of Bush Administration officials, which they finally had the sense not to try. One should not criminalize politics, even if you are dealing with scoundrels. (Which does not mean you avoid jailing bribe takers. Chris Dudd, are you listening?)
     
    Assuming that Republicans get control of the House in the November elections, the battle with Oilbama will be with the budget. Republicans will try to defund some of Oilbama’s programs. Oilbama will veto the budget. Pubs will not have enough votes to overcome his vetoes. I can see a deadlock arising. Some will say my prediction has credence; others will not.

  • SADIE

    Mike Devx in post #19 may have the only viable suggestion – stop the bleeding.  We may not be able to stop it totally, but if each State and collectively as a Nation, we use our votes as a tourniquet…maybe we can cut off some of the gangrene in 2010, 2012.

  • gpc31

    Impeach?  Have to disagree, unless Obama commits a clearly visible treasonous act, or attempts martial law.  Otherwise you make him a martyr to Black Americans, who still support him at 91% approval rate (!).  Take the Bork and Clarence Thomas wars, the Clinton impeachment, and Bush Derangement Syndrome and multiply it by a million.

    By way of comparison, I believe that both John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy committed treason (the fomer negotiating with the VC in Paris and the latter’s outreach to the Soviets early in Reagan’s first term — see the archives).

    Obama is a disaster for the country, no question.  Just vote him out.

  • SADIE

    ….or attempts martial law.
     
    If the Senate legislates the ‘internet kill switch bill’ doesn’t it circumvent martial law?
     
     

  • SADIE

    Gangrene seems to be the operative word .. so much for having an original thought [post #25]
     
    Amputate or Die
     
    It was a sobering dinner party last night (6/16). Hosted by a London billionaire in his exquisite home – a Boccaccio hung on the wall behind me – the wine flowed liberally, but the conversation between the ten of us was stone-cold serious.
     
     
    “So you are right – the only hope is radical surgery to cut out all the metastasizing cancer, to amputate unconstitutional gangrene, or another metaphor, to be like Alexander and cut the Gordian Knot with a swordstroke.
     
    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-27672-Portland-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d18-Amputate-or-Die-by-Dr-Jack-Wheeler

  • Mike Devx

    Gringo says in #24:
    > Assuming that Republicans get control of the House in the November elections, the battle with Oilbama will be with the budget. Republicans will try to defund some of Oilbama’s programs. Oilbama will veto the budget. Pubs will not have enough votes to overcome his vetoes. I can see a deadlock arising. Some will say my prediction has credence; others will not.

    I agree with Gringo, and Book has said this too in several posts, that Obama’s veto will keep his programs going.

    But isn’t the House in charge of funding all programs?  In other words, doesn’t the budget and the monies flow through the House?  If you don’t fund a program, well… it may not have been repealed… and it may not be physically DEAD… but it would for all intents and purposes be dead, wouldn’t it?  The House creates and writes the budget bill, I believe.

    Because we’re talking about the budget battle, such a defunding in the budget would cause a showdown between Obama and the Republican House.   Clinton faced the same thing after the Republican “Contract For America” takeover of the House in 1994, and stuck to his guns in the face of the 1995 government shutdown, and he won.  But Obama is not Clinton, and this is not 1995.

    I suppose it will come down to whether the American People have truly woken up to our fiscal disaster, or not.  If they haven’t truly woken up yet, then the time is too soon, and we would fail.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    And ignorant people still wonder to this day what benefit we got from invading and reconstructing Iraq.
     
    How’s learning to resolve differences between numerous factions that were on killing terms before we fixed the place up compare to the current situation of America?
     
    We got all kinds of problems, not including factionalism. Everybody and their uncle is figuring out whether the Common Good is even worth it any more. Instead people are thinking of saving their own skins first. Clannism. Familiasm. Amoral familiasm. Parochialism. It’s all on the rise. It ain’t just the politicians up at DC fighting it out over turf. It’s bloggers. Reporters on the military war front, civilian and former military. current military generals vs current civilian Presidents. Former military generals against current CINC (Bush). It’s all over the place, people.
     
    These are all indicators of civil war.
     
    Invading Iraq so we can figure out just exactly what triggers people need to start killing each other, and more importantly, how to STOP it once it is happening, is what we got from the Iraq experiment. All that is required now, is to use it. To use counter-insurgency or insurgency, against the federal government and their propaganda/bureaucratic organs.
     
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    This i why I say Obama is the symptom of the disease. Even if you got rid of him in 2012, which may look likely now but Murphy likes to jam up the works, that still leaves the actual powerbase of the Left intact.
     
    That’s like killing Zarwawi and Sadr, but leaving all his terrorist and criminal networks intact to regenerate in another few months. It’s ridiculous. It doesn’t work. It just pisses off the local population who thought they were safe, but now sometime later their business and family gets jacked and the people they relied upon to prevent that, YOU, look like you got your head stuck up your arse and your arse in the sand.
     
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    The only way Obama is going to get impeached is you have hard evidence, most likely video evidence, of him speaking or doing treason and then you send it out on the net via a net virus so that the MSm can’t lock it down.
    Even then, Democrats will never impeach Obama. And if a Republican majority does it or is successful at it, they would use up so much political capital that the Democrats might win anyways, after their scorch earth campaign.