So you impeach a president and then what? You get his vice president as president, and he now has a fresh hold on the presidency and all the power that goes with it. You have a potential, then, for eight more years of these guys being in power.
No! That is not good. But that's not even my main reason for being against impeaching a president. In fact, back when there were arguments for impeaching President Clinton for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinski, I was opposed to the idea then. The reason: it looks bad for America. As a person who loves my country, I do not want my country to look bad.
So now we have a few people talking about the possibility of impeaching Obama. You have people saying that the first thing Congress will do if people vote republicans into a majority in November of 2014 is to impeach Obama.
As noted, I have been completely opposed to this, until Obama released four of the world's biggest, most evil, villains in the world, giving them right back to the evil Taliban to which they came, in exchange for a person who appears to have been a deserter and not a prisoner of war. Or, you could say it was one of our guys for four of theirs.
To me, this latest action makes all the suspect actions of Obama in the past several years make sense. If Obama is making a four for one swap, releasing four Taliban leaders in the process, it's a sign to me that he does not see the Taliban as the enemy. It's a sign that he sees his own country as the enemy. That, dear readers, is an impeachable offense. It's something I wrote about under my pseudonym even before Obama was elected.
Well, actually, what is impeachable is that he was, by a law that he signed, supposed to give Congress a 30 day notice for any prisoner swap. But did you know that he tried to make this same deal back in March of 2012. The only reason this went public is because he briefed some members of Congress about it, they found it a repulsive idea, and so leading democrat and mega Obama supporter Dianne Feinstein put her country first an leaked the story to Foreign Policy magazine.
So this time Obama didn't want that to happen, so he bypassed the law and made the swap without telling Congress. He broke the law. This, by the way, is an impeachable offense.
However, we must temper any enthusiasm here. The idea of this blog is not to be one sided, or blind sided, so we must take a look at all the facts before we come to any conclusions here.
Charles Krauthammer, in his June 5 column, notes the following:
There is strong eyewitness evidence that Bergdahl deserted his unit and that the search for him endangered his fellow soldiers. If he had served with honor and distinction, there would be no national uproar over his ransom and some of the widely aired objections to the deal would be as muted as they are flimsy. For example:
1. America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. Nonsense. Of course we do. Everyone does, while pretending not to. The Israelis, by necessity the toughest of all anti-terror fighters, in 2011 gave up 1,027 prisoners, some with blood on their hands, for one captured staff sergeant.
2. The administration did not give Congress 30-day notice as required by law. Of all the jurisdictional disputes between president and Congress, the president stands on the firmest ground as commander in chief. And commanders have the power to negotiate prisoner exchanges.
Moreover, from where did this sudden assertion of congressional prerogative spring? After five years of supine acquiescence to President Obama’s multiple usurpations, Congress suddenly becomes exercised over a war power — where its claim is weakest. Congress does nothing in the face of 23 executive alterations of the president’s own Affordable Care Act. It does nothing when Obama essentially enacts by executive order the Dream Act, which Congress had refused to enact. It does nothing when the Justice Department unilaterally rewrites drug laws. And now it rises indignantly on its hind legs because it didn't get 30 days’ notice of a prisoner swap?
3. The Taliban release endangers national security.So that was Krauthammer. I think we can see he is equally concerned about this swap, although, because Congress has failed to show indignation at any of Obama's other unconstitutional moves, then how can he justify taking action on this most recent illegal move. This kind of points the finger at the idea that neither the republican nor democrat party gives a hoot about the constitution.
Indeed it does. The five released detainees are unrepentant, militant and dangerous. They’re likely to go back into the field and resume their war against local and foreign infidels, especially us.
The administration pretense that we and the Qataris will monitor them is a joke. They can start planning against us tonight. And if they decide to leave Qatar tomorrow, who’s going to stop them?
However, I must note, that I recently watched the Untouchables starring Robert De Niro as Al Capone and Kevin Cosner as Eliot Ness. This great movie reminds us that it was not that Capone was a famous mobster, nor that he sold alcohol illegally, nor that he killed hundreds of men in his attempts to get his way, that landed him in prison. No! It was one small detail he considered to be minute: it was tax evasion.
The fact that Obama has gotten away with illegal acts, acts that have weakened our economy, our borders, our national defense, our national resolve, and our confidence did not get him impeached.
He opens our borders and allows millions of illegals to cross our border, illegals who are prone to take low paying jobs and not bring in new ideas and technology to America, and illegals who will, more than likely, put themselves on the government dole and vote for democrats and their progressive ideals.
He allows guns to be sold near the border and to end up in the hands of Mexican drug lords to be used against American's trying to protect the border. This was what many refer to as "fast and furious." Obama wanted people to think drug Lords were crossing the border and purchasing guns at American stores, and he wanted to use this as a reason to get gun laws passed. But, as it turned out, Obama is the one who allowed those guns to be sold. Yes! It all makes sense now why he would do it: he hates America.
It all makes sense now. It's like I've had an epiphany of sorts. All of these actions, when you put them together, all made America worse off. It put us down to size. Sure, Obama took hits. Sure, his popularity plummeted. But, bottom line, he did what needed to be done: "fundamentally change America."
But this later action tops all of them, and should be the straw that breaks the camels back. It should be the action that causes -- forces -- Congress to take action.
I believe that he knows now that he no longer has the support of Congress, nor the people. For this reason, he is going to do whatever is in his power, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, to continue his efforts to, as he put it, "fundamentally change America."
In other words: Impeach Obama. Don't give him another 2.5 years to continue to destroy our country that he obviously hates.