It is past time to impeach (Saturbray)

www.braylog.com ^ | 7/26/14 | bray

[tanknetter]

Your right, we have to show the country we are nice and play defense to win big. Being offensive might upset those precious moderates who win all the elections. After all Rove and the Establishment say so and they have never lost.

Impeachment is an inherently political act. The Framers knew so, and said so, in places like the Federalist Papers (#65, but also #51 and #69).

So you don't make the decision to impeach in the absence of considering the political environment and consequences of doing so. Impeachment can be used to remove an offensive President/Officeholder from their position (assuming the Senate goes along), or it can be used as a check upon an offensive President/Officeholder if the Senate doesn't.

But there MUST be a reasonable expectation that the act of Impeachment will achieve the desired political ends. The worst possible outcome of an impeachment is to not only leave the offensive President/Officeholder in power, but to actually STRENGTHEN their power by rallying the public to their side and cause.

That's where any impeachment of Obama is going to go. He's going to walk away stronger, not weaker. He's going to walk away with Harry Reid still in control of the Senate. He might even pick up House seats - perhaps not enough to put Pelosi back into the Speakership but certainly enough for him to claim victory and a mandate for his final two years. Probably enough to see his Democrat successor in the White House elected with a wide popular majority and an electoral landslide.

Remember the old saying that if you're going to take a shot at the King, be sure to kill him. It applies just as well in the figurative/political sense to the American Republic.

There are other ways to put a check on an out of control executive besides impeachment. A big way is to put both Houses of Congress firmly into the control of persons opposing him. There's an excellent chance that the GOP can and will do that in the Senate this Fall. And while there's all sort of griping about the GOPe and McConnell running the show, denying them a majority not only robs us of the one chance to exercise a proper check it ALSO robs guys we support like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee (or even guys we support some of the time on certain things, like Rand Paul) of being in the Majority where they can actually provide some leadership (like Cruz did during the shutdown last year).

[pfony1]

With all due respect, “losing” is NOT “winning” — no matter how brave the soldiers or how just the cause.

Therefore, we need to pick fights that we can WIN, and we need to prepare the battle-space so that the resources we actually have will allow us to WIN.

If you sincerely want to impeach Obama, FIRST, get the majority of Americans to support your quest. THEN, succeed.

You may think that to getting yourself organized to win together is just too much work for you to do.

If so, I’m sure you will understand why I won’t be joining your little re-enactment of “Custer’s Last Stand”.

“Losing” is NOT “winning.”

[FreeReign]

If you sincerely want to impeach Obama, FIRST, get the majority of Americans to support your quest. THEN, succeed.

Draw up articles of impeachment and then articulate the message of what is in the them.

[Delta Dawn]

the Black Vote

The Trayvon Worshippers...

[pfony1]

We need more than one list, published in more than one place.

And these lists should be presented to the public in ways that prevent our corrupt media from selectively “editing” those lists to make our patriots look deranged.

I saw a woman on TV who loudly protested that her neighbors needed help more than the invading hordes do. Let’s make the case that favoring illegals over citizens pushes black American down.

Does anyone think that Obama “identifies” with black Americans? With any Americans?

How much longer will black Americans submit to abuse by Democrats?

[FreeReign]

Tally-ho!

[SoCal SoCon]

Meant to say. Thanks for the correction.

[itsahoot]

You really don’t get it, do you?

Of course I get it, you are just wrong and won't admit it.

[jaydubya2]

Richard Nixon was impeached..."

He was?

[1010RD]

OK, I’m wrong. The House moves to impeach Obama. He’s impeached. Now what? Do you think we’ll win in November on this?

[itsahoot]

Do you think we’ll win in November on this?

I don't think we will win in November in any case, we are determined to keep the GOPe in office and many of the old crooks will lose to lesser democrats, mark my word.

Then of course there is that fraud thingy, that everyone tries to ignore. I believe if Harry Reid thought there was a chance in he77 of losing the Senate he would have not have changed the rules on his own.

[1010RD]

So you’re expecting the GOPe and the old crooks to impeach Obama and are angry and disappointed that they won’t, but they’re the GOPe and old crooks that you won’t elect in November in the first place. Am I getting you right?

[itsahoot]

Am I getting you right?

Nope.

[ctdonath2]

“The second item of impeachment would be his exceeding his power as president by declaring executive orders that is either changing laws or making up new laws.”

Congress may reverse any executive order. This would be the first step in stopping such overreach; impeachment would be in order only if Congress overturned an EO and Obama continued to enforce it anyway.