Posted on 07/14/2014 10:37:38 AM PDT by jazusamo
Whenever Democrats are in real trouble politically, the Republicans seem to come up with something new that distracts the public's attention from the Democrats' problems. Who says Republicans are not compassionate?
With public opinion polls showing President Obama's sinking approval rate, in the wake of his administration's multiple fiascoes and scandals — the disgraceful treatment of veterans who need medical care, the Internal Revenue Service coverups, the tens of thousands of children flooding across our open border — Republicans have created two new distractions that may yet draw attention away from the Democrats' troubles.
From the Republican establishment, Speaker of the House John Boehner has announced plans to sue Barack Obama for exceeding his authority. And from the Tea Party wing of the Republicans, former Governor Sarah Palin has called for impeachment of the president.
Does President Obama deserve to be sued or impeached? Yes! Is there a snowball's chance in hell that either the lawsuit or an impeachment will succeed? No!
Barack Obama's repeated disregard of the laws that he is supposed to follow, and his blatantly changing these laws passed by Congress, are a threat to the whole Constitutional form of government, on which all our freedoms depend.
Once a president — any president — can create his own laws unilaterally, we are on our way to becoming a banana republic, where arbitrary rule from the top replaces representative government by "we the people."
Why not sue Barack Obama then, or impeach him?
For the simplest of all reasons: Neither of these actions is going to do anything to stop Obama, or even discredit him — and both can create a distraction that draws attention away from the Democrats' disasters during an election year.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
And they seem quite proud of their evolution into liberalism. I hear Burger King has a Whopper for that now.
When you have as many people fighting to protect Obama on a site like FR as there are? No. Probably not.
Good piece, it give facts on the supposed recovery that’s not a recovery and shows 0bama is lying again.
That’s what I don’t understand: my biggest arguments any more are with my fellow conservatives.
Well said, he definitely belongs in prison.
While Sowell is a brilliant conservative voice, I think his argument is slightly flawed for one reason: There is no political solution to the failed condition of our nation. Sowell always advocates a civil solution. Many of our founders were the same way and did not want to break away from British rule. It took time to change their minds.
There will be no friendly compromise with the die-hard leftists who have taken over every institution of our country. They will not listen to reason, logic or morality. They are hell-bent on getting their way when it comes to expanding their political religion with its sacraments of sexual perversion, abortion, and unlimited power (aka tyranny, with gun control being its linchpin).
War is coming. It is unavoidable. I do not know who will fire the first shot, but it will happen, and the outcome will be earth-shattering.
But we might as well play along with the charade while we prepare. Just don’t count on any real solution to come out of political activism any longer. It will be a band-aid at best.
Prepare for war and rebuilding whatever Phoenix rises from the ashes of our once great nation. After that, let there be no place on God’s green earth for the perpetrators of our nation’s destruction to flee justice.
They arent your fellow conservatives. Conservatives believe in following the Constitution.
The constitution calls for impeachment for HCAM.
Everyone accepts that multiple instances have been Committed.
The Constitution does not take party/politics/election prospects into consideration. If HCAM have occurred, impeachment is the remedy. Not letting HCAM slide. Every person in congress swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Ergo, they are oathbound to impeach.
Since the above is true, people wanting to skip impeachment for any reason are guilty of the exact same thing Obama is. Twisting/ignoring the laws/Constitution based on situational ethics. And that isn’t conservative.
The media and Republicans bail out the Democrats often because they agree on the same UN Agenda 21 goals.
Just different heads of the same snake.
What then is the possible (to stretch a point, knowing it won’t happen) solution?
The Constitution must be amended to make impeachment possible. But of course many states are under Democratic political control, so even that is impossible.
I would favor a regime in which impeachment would be convicted not by senators but by governors, who by voting not to convict would be indicating that the conduct of which the POTUS is guilty is conduct they themselves, as executives on a smaller scale, might do. A Democratic governor might think twice about associating himself with executive lawlessness . . .
Such an amendment might also require a majority of both houses of Congress to go forward to the governors for an up-or-down vote (but, obviously, not be subject to presidential veto).
“None of the options are good, but I don’t see a better course of action.”
Sowell may be harkening back to Napoleon, who said “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Perhaps allowing the demonrat scandals to develop would give the Republicans a better chance to take back the Senate than would either a law suit or impeachment. Especially if they base the impeachment in part on “secret” evidence that the public never sees.
“The benefit of an impeachment would be the airing/disclosure of Obama’s high crimes.”
The success of the Clinton’s impeachment turned entirely on secret evidence. Not only did the public never see it, Dingy Harry wouldn’t let the senators see it either.
This would have been closer to the norm prior to the 17th amendment, when state legislators chose their Senators.
I think that the problem with impeachment today is that we have devolved from co-equal branches of government to unequal parties. It's no longer about the Congress against the President, or the House against the Senate; it's about Democrats vs. Republicans in every branch of government, with Democrats and the MSM having their thumbs on the scale of justice.
Senate loyalties are to the party, not the state, mostly due to the need to raise campaign funding every six years.
One would hope that a stronger allegience to the state by Senators MIGHT be enough to make impeachment and conviction more likely than it appears to be today, if only because Senators might fear for their jobs more likely if state legislatures appointed them.
-PJ
I believe the idea of an amendment for governors having the power to convict instead of the Senate is a reasonable one.
A governor of either party may feel a duty to cross party lines, as you say, to avoid associating himself with executive lawlessness.
It looks to me that the Founders made it very difficult to impeach and convict and may have not envisioned the politics and partiality that we are experiencing now.
What is the strategy if Pubs do NOT win the Senate? Wait quietly until 2016?
Is it possible that do nothing Pubs, having won the Senate & House, continue to do NOTHING?
I believe there is something the House can do prior to November:
Refuse to fund one or more unpopular departments in the government, say the IRS or Justice, until the missing emails are produced. Both are co-conspirators in these crimes. Neither are obeying the law.
Obama has manufactured numerous crises during his time in office. It's time for the House to rein in the purse, even if it does create a crisis in the ranks of the bureaucrats.
Oh, thank God...here comes the GOPe and their band of republicans to save US.
Dr. Sowell is right, of course, but these days it's hard to tell the difference between the problem and the available solution he advocates.
And that fact makes his solution potentially worse than our problem while explaining much of why we are in this position now.
"Traitors damage us in ways enemies cannot."
Fundamentally, the problem is thatthe MSMwire service journalism, augmented by broadcasting has become dominant. Wire service journalism (primarily the AP, but if not them, someone else would do the same thing) aspired to objectivity, which - in the context of the fractious partisan nature of pre-AP reporting - seemed like an unimpeachable idea. But “the devil is in the details” - and people never fully reckoned with the possibility that journalists might come actually to believe in their own objectivity.The trouble with a journalism which believes in its own objectivity is the same as the trouble with a faction which believes in its own wisdom. Once you know you are objective (or wise), you automatically stop doing the work of attempting to be objective (or wise). The classical problem of the Sophists (literally, “wise guys”) of ancient Greece brought forth the the classical responders, the “Philosophers” (“lovers of wisdom), who eschewed personal attacks and demanded that the subject of debate be restricted to facts and logic. The “objective” journalists of today must similarly be confronted with the fact that when they fail to consider the possibility that where they stand is influenced by where they sit, they automatically degrade into the rankest, most self-interested, partisanship.
The result is that journalists promote criticism over performance - and it is only natural that a political party would align itself unreservedly with the PR power which is journalism.
At least a lawsuit has to get media attention & it’s a platform for telling people WHY there’s a problem with Obama et al.
Impeachment is a waste of time at this point, & it does gin up their base.
Doing nothing would be fine if you could count on the media to go after them. Our problem is that the media is covering for them.
No, Libertarians do.
Most "Conservatives" believe in a medical monopolistic tyranny, with police state enforcement. You will only take the drugs and treatments sold and prescribed by the king and his wise men, or off to the gulag if we don't kill you, your family, and your pets first.
I consider your post empty rhetoric.
I agree with your sentiment, but what are you talking about?
How will this “war” shape up?
He already has done that. He passed the Dream Act all by himself with an EO. So, Mr. Sowell's advice is to sue and/or impeach after he does that, yet he says doing so now is wrong.
Huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.