The nation is in peril and the stupid voters don't care.
The following editorial by Stephen Stone discusses the impeachment of Barack Husein Obama and suggests that...I'll just quote him, "...Americans need to hear a harmonious chorus from our nation's conservative spokespersons calling for impeachment." The list includes some very prominent conservatives but noticeably absent was, Bill O'Reilly. Not that I considered (maybe some years ago I did) O'Reilly a conservative but most of the stupid voters think he and most everyone else on FOX News is. Earlier this week I mentioned Bill O'Reilly in another post regarding a landfill named in Obama's honor...let me repeat that here:
Unlike Bill O’Reilly who has nothing but respect for Obama, my disdain for the guy he thinks is deserving some kind of presidential homage is certainly warranted by everything un-American this poor excuse for a resident of the White House manifests on a daily basis. Never in my wildest dreams would I consider some national, state, or even local monument be erected or named after this piece of garbage… Whoops! What did I say? Did I say, “Garbage”? Well there may be an exception to my injudiciousness. There are apparently some who mirror my reverie and have come up with what I think “is a pile of garbage is a fitting tribute to Obama’s presidency.” The state of North Dakota has named a new publicly-owned landfill after President Barack Obama. North Dakota is apparently more astute than Bill O'Reilly. Good for them! (click anywhere on the link to read the full story)
So for whatever reason Mr. Stone omits O'Reilly from his list certainly would fall in line with my thoughts about the big guy on prime time.
Before I sign off and let you get to Stone's commentary I have one disagreement with him. Under The sole remedy section he says, "The president's "executive amnesty" (which, now imposed, will be impossible to undo), ..." If I were in charge, I could undo it in a heartbeat! ~ Norman E. HoobenThe following from Renew America
Will Obama be impeached now
that Republicans control both houses of Congress?
November 12,
2014
Stephen
Stone, RenewAmerica President
[Updated Nov. 22, 2014]
Shortly after communist-mentored Barack Obama was elected to the White House in 2008, I asked a brother at a family gathering, "Who's going to be president of the United States in 20 years?" Without hesitating, he said, "Barack Obama."
More informed than most people I'd asked, he instantly got the drift of my question.
As I was thinking through the implications of the de facto communist coup that precipitated the question, however, I was struck with a realization that gave me some degree of hope in the face of our nation's heightened peril.
Although no major communist strongman in the world's history had ever walked away from ultimate power on his own, I noted that the USA was unlike any other country in its heritage of constitutional self-governance — and it would be interesting to see how well the charismatic, deceptive Marxist just elected would do in forcing his promised "transformation" (writ: destruction) of our country down the throats of unsuspecting Americans.
I foresaw an unprecedented cultural clash that in time could well disprove Hegel and Marx's naive vision of history, with the U.S. refusing to ingest the Machiavellian fare of Mr. Obama and his minions and instead convulsively regurgitating it up.
The 2014 midterms resoundingly confirmed my suspicions. After six tumultuous years of lawless deception and anti-American deceit, the doctrinaire community organizer was repudiated in shocking fashion by the American public.
No mas, as Sarah Palin would say.
Which brings us to the crucial question: What do the American people want to do with this opportunity?
Most dangerous time in 150 years
The midterm election unquestionably showed that most Americans want Obama stopped, not appeased. Yet Republican congressional leaders like presumptive Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner appear not to have gotten the message. They think the election was about them — not about Barack Obama.
Both have indicated they plan to "work with" Obama to "govern" jointly. This, despite the president's defiant words that he will not change course nor back down from his radical agenda.
The only way Republicans will govern jointly in the face of such intransigence is to willfully capitulate to the president's demands. That's not what voters elected them to do in sweeping Obama's collaborators out of office. They want the GOP to stand firm and put an end to Obama's inroads — not cooperate with him in furthering his anti-American purposes.
Somebody needs to wake up the dreamers in the GOP leadership. Have them read Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt's recent article "America faces most dangerous two years in 150 years."
The fact is, while voters — by the grace of God — gave our country a historic reprieve from deliberate ruin at the hands of the tyrant in the White House, if congressional leaders ignore the will of the people and instead push the GOP's presidential aspirations in 2016 ahead of corralling Obama, the momentous election just passed will be wasted — and not only will Republicans face a backlash in 2016, and with it the loss of the House, the Senate, and any presidential aspirations they may hold, but our country's lawless transformation could soon afterward be all but complete and unstoppable.
Future generations will look back on the current GOP leadership with
contempt — naming names.
This is it, folks. This is likely our last providential opportunity to stop the Marxist transformation that Obama and his anti-American cohorts seek to force, cleverly and deceitfully, upon our nation.
"Impeach me if you can"
For months, Obama has dared Republicans to hold him to account for his open disdain for the Constitution by impeaching him. Understandably, Republicans have been reluctant to take the president up on his dare as long as the Democrats controlled the Senate and could easily block conviction and removal.
That response is no longer valid now that the GOP controls both houses of Congress — and also in view of Democrats' public distancing of themselves from Obama during the midterms, revealing disaffection with the man and his policies, reinforced by similar disaffection by many in the media, some of whom say Obama is "more dangerous to the media" than any president in history. (See here, here, and here.)
Republicans are thus without excuse if they don't take the current opportunity to put a timely end to Obama's dangerous, repeated dereliction of duty and abuse of authority, before he does our nation further harm.
How soon before Congress should begin impeachment hearings?
In August, I wrote,
[Updated Nov. 22, 2014]Shortly after communist-mentored Barack Obama was elected to the White House in 2008, I asked a brother at a family gathering, "Who's going to be president of the United States in 20 years?" Without hesitating, he said, "Barack Obama."
More informed than most people I'd asked, he instantly got the drift of my question.
As I was thinking through the implications of the de facto communist coup that precipitated the question, however, I was struck with a realization that gave me some degree of hope in the face of our nation's heightened peril.
Although no major communist strongman in the world's history had ever walked away from ultimate power on his own, I noted that the USA was unlike any other country in its heritage of constitutional self-governance — and it would be interesting to see how well the charismatic, deceptive Marxist just elected would do in forcing his promised "transformation" (writ: destruction) of our country down the throats of unsuspecting Americans.
I foresaw an unprecedented cultural clash that in time could well disprove Hegel and Marx's naive vision of history, with the U.S. refusing to ingest the Machiavellian fare of Mr. Obama and his minions and instead convulsively regurgitating it up.
The 2014 midterms resoundingly confirmed my suspicions. After six tumultuous years of lawless deception and anti-American deceit, the doctrinaire community organizer was repudiated in shocking fashion by the American public.
No mas, as Sarah Palin would say.
Which brings us to the crucial question: What do the American people want to do with this opportunity?
Most dangerous time in 150 years
The midterm election unquestionably showed that most Americans want Obama stopped, not appeased. Yet Republican congressional leaders like presumptive Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner appear not to have gotten the message. They think the election was about them — not about Barack Obama.
Both have indicated they plan to "work with" Obama to "govern" jointly. This, despite the president's defiant words that he will not change course nor back down from his radical agenda.
The only way Republicans will govern jointly in the face of such intransigence is to willfully capitulate to the president's demands. That's not what voters elected them to do in sweeping Obama's collaborators out of office. They want the GOP to stand firm and put an end to Obama's inroads — not cooperate with him in furthering his anti-American purposes.
Somebody needs to wake up the dreamers in the GOP leadership. Have them read Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt's recent article "America faces most dangerous two years in 150 years."
The fact is, while voters — by the grace of God — gave our country a historic reprieve from deliberate ruin at the hands of the tyrant in the White House, if congressional leaders ignore the will of the people and instead push the GOP's presidential aspirations in 2016 ahead of corralling Obama, the momentous election just passed will be wasted — and not only will Republicans face a backlash in 2016, and with it the loss of the House, the Senate, and any presidential aspirations they may hold, but our country's lawless transformation could soon afterward be all but complete and unstoppable.
Future generations will look back on the current GOP leadership with
contempt — naming names.This is it, folks. This is likely our last providential opportunity to stop the Marxist transformation that Obama and his anti-American cohorts seek to force, cleverly and deceitfully, upon our nation.
"Impeach me if you can"
For months, Obama has dared Republicans to hold him to account for his open disdain for the Constitution by impeaching him. Understandably, Republicans have been reluctant to take the president up on his dare as long as the Democrats controlled the Senate and could easily block conviction and removal.
That response is no longer valid now that the GOP controls both houses of Congress — and also in view of Democrats' public distancing of themselves from Obama during the midterms, revealing disaffection with the man and his policies, reinforced by similar disaffection by many in the media, some of whom say Obama is "more dangerous to the media" than any president in history. (See here, here, and here.)
Republicans are thus without excuse if they don't take the current opportunity to put a timely end to Obama's dangerous, repeated dereliction of duty and abuse of authority, before he does our nation further harm.
How soon before Congress should begin impeachment hearings?
In August, I wrote,
- Regarding [the] timing of [impeachment], many who support impeaching Obama
are waiting to see if the GOP takes control of the Senate Nov. 4 before they
weigh in openly in support of impeachment. This way of looking at the matter is
consistent with what Ambassador Alan Keyes has written: we must
elect an "impeachment Congress" this fall so we will have a better chance of
removing Obama than we have right now.
This practical consideration suggests at least two things: (1) the number of [GOP House and Senate members] who support impeaching Obama is likely much higher than current estimates, and (2) those running for election to the House or Senate this season are being counted on by the conservative base of the GOP to honor their sworn oath to defend the Constitution against the likes of Obama if they are elected.
As far as timing goes, the optimum timetable — considering how lawless Obama has increasingly become — would be for impeachment hearings to begin in the House immediately after the election, and for Obama's trial to begin not long after a new Senate convenes in January 2015.
The sole remedy
The president's "executive amnesty" (which, now imposed, will be
impossible to undo), his reckless endangering of our nation through opening wide
our borders, his infamous trading of dangerous Taliban commanders for a U.S.
deserter in Afghanistan, his obvious scheme to allow Iran to have the bomb, his
treasonous arming of Jihadists in the Middle East (including ISIS), his
treacherous ties to terrorist sponsor the Muslim Brotherhood, his deceitful
cover-up of Benghazi, his illegal Fast and Furious gunrunning scheme — these and
other unAmerican or derelict actions make impeachment an increasingly urgent
imperative.No longer can the GOP simply rattle sabers and issue empty words while failing to invoke the Constitution's sole remedy to stopping the dangerous, lawless behavior we are witnessing almost daily in Mr. Obama, that being impeachment and removal.
CNN lied
Before saying another word, let me take a moment to debunk a widely circulated media myth regarding impeachment.
Last July, CNN ran a poll that falsely claimed two-thirds of Americans oppose impeachment. The claim was based on demonstrably flawed data meant purposely (it would appear) to defuse the growing grassroots impeachment drive.
Given the favorable response of both parties and the media to the bogus poll, the poll seemed to work. It had the effect of shutting down nearly all serious talk of impeachment from that point on, even in the conservative media.
Obviously, if two-thirds of the country are opposed to impeaching Obama, there is little point in pursuing it.
Just days before the CNN poll was conducted, the Huffington Post released its own impeachment poll — a more reliable measurement that showed an overwhelming majority of Americans DO NOT OPPOSE IMPEACHMENT.
According to the HuffPost poll, 44 percent oppose impeachment, 33 percent support it, and 21 are unopposed — for a total of 56 percent either supporting impeachment or having no firm opposition to it.
(We might add that a large number of the 21 percent who were reported as unopposed would now likely support impeachment — since Obama has continued to push his lawless agenda without letting up, even announcing he will go further now the midterms are over.)
In any case, there's no reliable data showing that two-thirds of the public oppose impeaching the lawless inhabitant of the White House, and there never was. The clever CNN poll was merely an attempt to counter the HuffPost poll with false methods and false data, and it arrived at its exaggerated number by counting those who had no strong opinion on impeachment as firmly opposing it. If you take the 44 percent HuffPost found to be opposed to impeachment and add the 21 percent it found unopposed ("not sure"), you get exactly the 65 percent CNN reported as firmly "opposed."
That's sheer deception on the part of CNN, and the poll should be discarded. (For a detailed analysis of the poll, see "A path to impeachment.")
Out-of-touch RepublicansUnfortunately, even without a false poll to mislead them, some in the GOP leadership appear not to perceive the dangerously subversive tenure of team Obama.
Back in April, as impeachment talk was growing nationally, I took the occasion at a Western Republican Leadership Conference to hand-deliver impeachment packets to several GOP leaders who attended.
Among those I gave packets to were Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee, GOP National Chairman Reince Priebus, and a handful of congressional candidates. The packet included my March article "Do your part to impeach and remove Obama" and a few other items, including a column by Alan Keyes, a list of impeachable offenses by Obama, and a Pledge To Impeach that some of us at RenewAmerica and Dr. Keyes' Conservative Majority PAC had drawn up.
As I gave these out, I had positive conversations with these leaders or their staffers, and I felt my efforts were reasonably productive. I had an especially productive discussion with the campaign manager of a well-known congressional candidate.
I then approached our state's moderately conservative Republican governor, a longtime friend, and gave him a packet to look over and think about, expecting he'd take an interest. I was surprised at his hostile reaction: "What would you impeach him for."
Mind you, this was in the earlier stages of the growing movement to impeach Obama — before Obama's lawlessness had become widely acknowledged — and from a chief executive who was preoccupied with governing his state.
To bring him up to speed, I named off Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and few other impeachable offenses that immediately came to mind, and was met with resistance similar to that expressed by Republican House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, who told the press Obama "has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for [impeachment]."
With his nervous bodyguard hovering close, I did my best to educate the governor, and left.
Several weeks later, when Obama's treasonable Bergdahl swap was announced to public outrage, I wondered if my friend the governor was paying enough attention to know that his question had been definitively answered.
That was six months ago, as the impeachment movement was just gaining steam. At this late point in America's crisis — with Obama's unconstitutional lawlessness unquestionably surpassing anything ever seen in our nation's politics — the growing sense among conservatives is that Obama definitely deserves impeachment.
In its July Poll, HuffPost found that fully 68 percent of
Republicans favor impeachment, with 90 percent saying Obama had exceeded the
limits of his constitutional authority. These numbers — undoubtedly higher now —
indicate the GOP leadership, which
generally opposes impeachment, is out of step with its base on so vital an
issue as stopping the president's unlawful usurpation of power.Time for GOP leaders to speak out
With Obama increasingly daring to be impeached, and a majority of Americans either supporting impeachment or being open to it, what our nation needs from the new GOP-led Congress is leadership — not "cooperation" with Obama's disastrous, transformative agenda.
Since current GOP leaders can't be relied on to do what's constitutionally required to stop the president, new members of Congress — from both chambers — need to take the lead and boldly call for impeachment hearings. They can do so even before they're sworn in, to rally conservatives in the lead-up to impeachment.
Members of the Senate who weren't up for re-election likewise need to proclaim the same message with clarity.
For the sake of their own posterity, and out of respect for the electorate who put them in office, Republican legislators need to come together and get ready for the only real option left if America is to survive in liberty: impeachment hearings that are timely and competently conducted in the glare of public scrutiny.
All that's required for this to happen is for enough Republicans in Congress who have not been misled or intimidated by the media, the Democrats, or their own leadership about Obama's treasonable actions — or who are not in denial — to speak out plainly and forcefully in favor of impeachment and removal NOW.
For starters, Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, James Inhofe, Pat Roberts, and their conservative peers should immediately stand up and — in accordance with their sworn duty — demand impeachment of Barack Obama and his innermost co-conspirators, including Vice President Biden.
Likewise, Representatives Trey Gowdy, Steve King, Steve Scalise, Walter Jones, Louie Gohmert, Jim Bridenstine, Dana Rohrabacher, and other House conservatives need to do the same, undeterred by self-serving members in leadership.
Newly-elected members of both houses — including Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, David Perdue, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, Cory Gardner, Dan Sullivan, Mike Rounds, James Lankford, and Shelley Moore Capito in the Senate; and Dave Brat, Mia Love, John Ratcliffe, Will Hurd, Brian Babin, Alex Mooney, Barry Loudermilk, and other new conservatives in the House — also need to show voters they're serious about holding Obama accountable for his flagrantly unlawful, dangerous actions.
Beyond conservatives in the House and Senate, Americans need to hear a harmonious chorus from our nation's conservative spokespersons calling for impeachment. In addition to those already on record as doing so — such as Sarah Palin, Alan Keyes, Tom Tancredo, Joseph Farah, Allen West, Bryan Fischer, Judge Jeanine Pirro, and others — the leadership-starved public need to hear the following respected voices unequivocally affirm the urgency to expose, impeach, and remove the usurper in a timely, decisive manner:
Andrew McCarthyRichard Viguerie
Rush Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Megyn Kelly
Phyllis Schlafly
Glenn Beck
Dick Morris
Tom Fitton
Pat Buchanan
Donald Trump
Mike Huckabee
Gov. Rick Perry
Brent Bozell
Laura Ingraham
Dinesh D'Souza
James Dobson
Tony Perkins
Jim DeMint
Matt Hoskins
Tom DeLay
Floyd Brown
Wayne LaPierre
Ben Carson
Cleta Mitchell
Phil Robertson
...and others who wield influence among Republican leaders and the conservative grassroots.
A matter of sacrifice and decency
Where are the professing leaders who care as much about their country as their career, acceptance, or security — or better yet, who "more than self their country love"? The public needs to hear from those who still have the decency, and courage, to take on the most lawless president in history and hold him to account — along with errant GOP officials.
Our country's future, and that of the rest of the world, hangs tenuously in the balance. Let's proceed.
A caveat
The weakest link in the above scenario is Speaker John Boehner, slated to be the president if Obama and Biden are removed. The new House of Representatives needs to give SERIOUS thought to replacing Boehner with someone capable of standing up to the administration's deceitful, fatal agenda.
For the sake of our nation's indentured posterity, as well
our republic's very continuance in decent liberty, newly elected — as well as
long-time — members of the House of Representatives must ensure that impeachment
and removal are indeed possible, by choosing someone more attuned to the will of
the people for their leader, one who might also be ours as a
nation.Under
the Constitution, the Speaker does not even need to be a member of the
House, so Republicans have wide latitude in choosing someone to lead the
country, provisionally, during these difficult times until the 2016 election,
when voters themselves can again choose a president.Exceptional times call for exceptional measures, as well as exceptional wisdom. No matter who is chosen to replace Speaker Boehner—from within the House or from without—it’s imperative that House members take their sworn duty to preserve the Constitution seriously enough to act boldly and decisively in choosing a Speaker who could possibly be the next president.
A further caution
We end by raising again the specter of Obama's insatiable lust for power, with which we began this discussion. As we contemplate the compelling need to impeach and remove the president, consider the following exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy and a witness before Congress in December 2013, as Rep. Gowdy wondered aloud if Obama planned to stay on indefinitely:
- "If the president can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the president
likewise fail to enforce election laws?" Gowdy asked of Simon Lazarus,
senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, who was giving
testimony.
"If you can dispense with immigration laws or marijuana laws or mandatory minimums, can you also dispense with election laws?" Gowdy asked Lazarus.
For his part, Lazarus said that Obama couldn't do such a thing. But Gowdy pressed on and asked the logical question, "Why not?"
"Because we live in a government of laws, and the president is bound to obey them and apply them," Lazarus replied.
But Gowdy wasn't to be so easily pushed off point.
"Well he's not applying the ACA, and he's not applying immigration laws, and he's not applying marijuana laws, and he's not applying mandatory minimums. What's the difference with election laws?" Gowdy asked pointedly.
Of course, all Obama's supporters blithely assure us that Obama wouldn't be so anti-American, anti-law, and anti-Constitution as to ignore his lawful duties in the way Gowdy suggests. But the fact is he's already done it dozens of times before. So, why not again?
Note: Permission is granted to use this
article, all or in part, with appropriate attribution, and to disseminate it
widely. Please share it with anyone who may be interested.
Other
related articles by Stephen Stone:A path to
impeachment
Do your part to impeach and remove Obama
Is Facebook blocking RenewAmerica's impeachment drive?
© Stephen StoneDo your part to impeach and remove Obama
Is Facebook blocking RenewAmerica's impeachment drive?
______________________________________________________________
This video ↓ from Rebel Pundit (Note: While Stephen Stone says, "...Americans need to hear a harmonious chorus from our nation's conservative spokespersons calling for impeachment." It would be far more effective if Americans heard more from folks like this.)
↓ ↓ ↓
___________________________
Have you ever heard that expression, "Watch your back."? I appears that America hasn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment