Boy, I said to myself, that is Birther level delusion. And a brief review of your "in forum" shows that I was right.
So tell me, just what Birther math are you using to arrive at 67 votes in the next Senate to convict BO, and remove him from office, when this impeachment occurs? I mean with once in a century luck the Republicans might get 60 seats in the Senate, but 67? Or have you not thought that far? Or does you super-duper-Orly-Taitz-approved plan for victory have BO not being convicted at his impeachment trial, and being allowed, like Clinton, to finish two full terms?
I don’t see much difference between Romney and Obama and this view is shared by people across the political spectrum.
When Obama gets elected to a 2nd term, he will face an increasingly hostile Congress and Courts. He will move to do things unilaterally by EO just as he is doing now.
At some point there will be a full-blown crisis regarding his birth status. Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation presses on with more damning evidence of fraud. If a charge of criminal fraud is issued, and it looks probable that it will be issued, then the Congress will not be able to ignore the charges and will have to without any other option take it up.
There may indeed be reluctance of 34 Senators to convict him following impeachment, but they have to answer as to why Obama’s crimes did not rise to high crimes and misdemeanors, why he should be allowed to stay in office after a lower court convicted him of fraud, and how his fraud was perpetuated by himself and the DNC by fraudulently placing him on ballots as eligible to be President.
In the case of William J. Clinton, it was always cast as a he said-she said sexual conflict and the American people although appalled by the accusations did not think that whatever happened was provable to a crime that warranted conviction. It was not the sexual abuses of William J. Clinton that were subject to conviction, it was using the Office of the Presidency to aid, abet or cover-up the criminal conduct. Only Senator Fred Thompson was able to write a brief that was convincing enough to convict Clinton in the Senate but other Senators were reticent because they thought that the underlying behavior did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Such is not the case with Obama. If he is tried in a lower court and found to be fraudulent in his representation of his bonafides, and it is found he was complicit in the Fast & Furious deadly arming of narco-traffickers, then there is plenty of material to push for conviction in the Senate. Because this case of Barack Obama II is not about sex but about subverting the Constitution and covering up a dealy illegal arming of arch-enemies.
Having tracked the Clinton impeachment intensely, I am beginning to see the critical mass gathering to impeach Obama and if the evidence is about willful deliberate deception, then I can see conviction in the Senate happening.
Because Romney will appoint liberal judges, because he will preserve Obamacare, because he will back gay marriage and do all he can to bring down conservative influences, it is far better to pick to fight Obama with impeachment, than it is to act as cheerleader for the Romney.