Thursday, June 19, 2014
Obama Impeachment Idea Suggests Idiocratic Rule
I just received an email from former congressman Allen West, who is looking to impeach Obama. Obama is not the problem, and impeachment is not the solution. America's problems are deep, and they stem from government bloat, money printing, and special interests ranging from the food, banking, and healthcare lobbies to the government-union and environmentalist lobbies. The problems result from too much regulation, too much spending, too much government suppression, too much subsidization of the rich, too high taxes, too many government programs, and too much public greed.
Both parties are at fault. Impeachment would be a diversion, not only because the Democratic Senate will never find Obama guilty of anything but also because impeachment will not solve a thing. The Republicans are as socialist as the Democrats.
I just wrote a report on North Dakota, and North Dakota's Republican history is largely one of a big-government Republican Party led by what was called the Nonpartisan League, a spinoff of the state's Socialist Party that came to dominate state politics and the state's Republican Party until the 1950s. The claim that the Republican Party is the party of small government is so far from reality that its existence reminds me of the Mike Judge film, Idiocracy.
>Friend – I wanted to make sure you didn't miss this.
GOP Congressman Lou Barletta just announced that he thinks there may be enough "yes" votes in the House of Representatives to impeach Barack Obama!
Now – more than ever – we need to get the Guardian Fund's impeachment survey into the hands of every conservative in America. Can you help me?
Please make an emergency donation of $5 or more right away by clicking on this link to help me promote this critical survey on the impeachment of Barack Obama.
Make no mistake – Obama is ignoring the Constitution, our laws, and the system of checks and balances that safeguard this country.
He's committed high crimes and misdemeanors and it's time to kick him out of office.
Are you with me?
Thanks,
Allen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree significant holes exist in our checks and balances and the constitution is to many merely a buzzword they vaguely remember from high school or at best little more than dogmatic tradition that hasn’t kept up with the times. If it has not kept up then it should be challenged with amendments rather than to be ignored through underhanded abuse of power.
What about the U.S. Supreme Court? USSC decisions shouldn’t stand on their own but rather be sent to the Legislature for a discussion and a vote just like any piece of legislature. Appointing USSC justices is a high value political target second only to the POTUS and is in many respects practically an oligarchy. How can a few appointed people know what is best for America vs. 535 people sworn to represent Americans? Given the range and complexity of judicial philosophy, depending on who ends up there, decisions will inevitably be made that do not reflect mainstream American views. And like any small group the USSC can suffer Groupthink like phenomena. Legislating from the bench should be banned in a new constitutional amendment. Likewise, the USSC should review all new laws and both should review POTUS orders.
Also, journalism today now operates in the partisan theater exhibiting as much party line bias as any politician. Rather, they should be objectively reporting the news we all have the right to know. Never before has it been so easy and quick to spin truth as false and what is false as true - despite evidence or lack thereof. We can blame them in no small part for bad politicians they favored getting into office. And if you follow associations among their editors and ownership into Reuters and AP (not to mention secret Soros journalism conferences) you may find interesting collusion.
Impeaching Pres. Obama is not the answer. It is a bad move politically and is socially bad for America. Recalling what Bill Clinton said about Obama that "He’s an amateur", what we really need to do is address the professionals who have been the power behind him - what some have called, “the invisible government”.
I disagree with "The Republicans are as socialist as the Democrats" - it is simply not true. There are some who are but the Democrats are owed the lion’s share of socialist ideas. The real interest however falls in the special interest groups that front campaign resources. They will target whatever party gives them the best chance. A sig name like “Nonpartisan League” in a red state should be a big clue. Such organizations have significant influence over who gets on the ticket, and when it comes to the POTUS, you need either fame or fortune to get on the ticket. Barrack Obama had neither on his own but somehow he obtained both.
The socialists will always be in the background trying to influence any party. And it isn't the wannabe-do-gooders in the socialist stock we have to worry about. There is much we’ll never know but consider the two main situations that cause governments to spend (borrow) the most money: socialism and war. Thus, both will plague humanity indefinitely. So follow the money trail (if you can get that far) to whomever benefits and/or is entertained the most from increased national spending/debt and you just might find where we need to spend our attention the most.
Campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, Constitutional amendments that further constrain government activity to the Constitution, regulating foreign influence on sigs and the media, and killing the bank as Jackson did is what we should really focus on. Obama was right when he alluded to this country needing to change, fundamentally. But it is such change as I just mentioned that this country needs the most.
The world is already reaching the likes of the film Idiocracy – and we have to remember that even the POTUS plays second fiddle to the power that put him there – the money that ultimately originated in whatever hands desire to direct the world stage.
Historically, it was the GOP that introduced socialism to America. That goes back to the party's formation. They were the big-government party in the 1850s, when they favored a national bank, a protective tariff, subsidies to railroads, and public works construction. The GOP in many states, like North Dakota, was primarily socialist until the New Deal.
It partially changed because the gold or Bourbon Democrats were driven into the GOP first during Bryan's campaigns, then during Roosevelt's. There has always been a big-government remnant in the GOP. George Bush I and II are examples of Rockefeller Republicans. The Bushes in particular have been associated with the Rockefellers for generations, and they have long favored globalist, big-government ideas. The phrase "new world order," incidentally, comes from Skull and Bones literature.
The claim that the GOP is the small government party comes from the candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964. He and his ilk had been driven into the GOP by the New Deal and, earlier, the silver Democrats. The Rockefeller Republicans never went away, and in many regions they dominate the GOP.
I agree that the underlying problem is special interests. It would be nice if we could follow Jefferson's advice and have a revolution every 20 years, but the American people just aren't capable of revolutions, or even thinking about why they might be needed.
Post a Comment