MADDOG10's Blog

Among politicians and pundits who identify with the GOP, there are many who  pay lip-service to the U.S. Constitution. Yet when push comes to shove they seem  disposed by all means to avoid implementing its provisions.  But left unused,  the constitutional provisions intended to exercise the just powers of the body  politic waste away.  In this respect they are like the muscles of the human  body, but even more so.  They must be flexed to keep their fitness. If, in  practice, their vitality and purpose are not conveyed to each new generation,  they will soon be lost to memory and so, quite literally, cease to matter.

In this respect, Barack Obama’s rise to, and abuse of, political power has  proven to be a litmus test. It has exposed the GOP’s protestations of allegiance  to the Constitution for what they are: a hollow ploy, used to get votes from  gullible conservatives loyal to the Constitution and its principles.  Meanwhile,  by action or inaction, many of the people they vote into office end up helping  the would-be tyrants of the Obama faction cultivate the seeds of its  destruction.

So when Rush Limbaugh says that “efforts to try to have Obama impeached or  held personally responsible for these scandals is a bunch of wasted effort,” he  is saying that, on account of the politics of our times, this fundamental aspect  of the U.S. Constitution no longer matters.  With all due respect to Rush  Limbaugh (and my respect for him is sizable and sincere), I beg to differ.  The  judgment about “wasted effort” depends on what we’re trying to achieve.  If  politics is just a partisan game, with no goal but to score points for one side  or the other, it may be reasonable to conclude that impeachment is a wasted  effort.  After all, the Democrats who control the U.S. Senate will never allow  Obama to be removed from office.  Doesn’t this make impeachment impossible? 

Mr. Limbaugh is right to assume that impeachment is inherently political. In  this respect his view accords with that of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in  Federalist No. 65) that “… the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses  which proceed … from the abuse or violation of some public trust.  They are of a  nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they  relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

This  year’s summer blockbuster  — a guide for Congress to draw up articles of  impeachment — Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack  Obama from Office”

Insofar as they wish to preserve their constitutional self-government, can  the American people have a greater common interest than to react against abuses  of power that may threaten it? Before they can do so, however, mustn’t the facts  be examined in order to be sure that the abuses in question are so  extraordinarily malicious that they warrant the removal from office of the  person or persons responsible? As Hamilton says of the impeachment process, “Is  it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public  men?”

The difference between Limbaugh and Hamilton, however, is that when Mr.  Limbaugh speaks of politics he is referring to the competition of partisan  factions.  But for Hamilton politics means the business of citizens, i.e.,  individuals characterized by their concern for the common good of their society  as a whole, not just their own personal, factional, partisan interests.  From  Hamilton’s perspective, the way elected representatives handle such offenses is  therefore a test of their concern for the common good.  If they act, or refuse  to act, based solely on whether by doing so they advance their personal or  factional agenda, they show their contempt for the well-being of the nation as a  whole. They thereby prove themselves unfit for the offices (duties) they hold,  whether or not they are ever called to account for their dereliction.

But the challenge of holding them accountable has political implications that  we have to think through before we rush to agree with Mr. Limbaugh’s conclusion  that, in our present circumstances, impeachment is a waste of effort. The  Constitution divides the authority for impeachment from the authority to convict  and remove for good reason.  It makes the majority needed to approve a bill of  impeachment in the House no greater than that required for ordinary legislation.  It thus provides an ordinary way of calling civil officers to account  for what appears to be extraordinary misbehavior.

If those officers, at the behest of the president, cooperate with the  NATIONAL INQUEST, and let the facts speak for themselves, they at least do  nothing to confirm their contempt for constitutional constraints.  If, with the  open support of the president, they defy the constitutional authority of the  U.S. House, both they and the president confess by this defiance their  disposition to do what they are suspected of doing, defy and disregard the  provisions of the Constitution.  By itself this confession warrants a bill of  impeachment.  If, despite such open and palpable proof of their contempt for the  Constitution, a factional partisan majority in the U.S. Senate protects them  from the consequences, their action, too, is a palpable dereliction. For this it  is up to the people to convict and punish them, at the next election.

In Federalist No. 65 Hamilton reports that the impeachment process in the  U.S. Constitution is, in important respect, modeled after the procedures of the  British government.  This appears to be true of its political implications as  well.  Properly used, it provides an opportunity for the people, through their  representatives in the House, to approve and publicly register a vote of no  confidence in the president and all those willing to uphold his abuses in the  U.S. Senate.  Given the periodic elections provided for in the Constitution, an  opportunity is never far off for the people to change the composition of either  or both chambers of the national legislature.  By what they do, they can signify  their agreement or disagreement with the results of the no-confidence vote (or  votes). Seen in this light, the purpose of impeachment is to inform and mobilize  the citizens for their duty as the arbiters of constitutional integrity.  They  are the ones ultimately responsible for defending constitutional  self-government, or letting it perish.

But the leadership of both wings (Democrat and Republican) of the elitist  faction are working to overturn constitutional self-government in the United  States.  As I discuss in the most recent post on my blog, they have no use for  the constitutional provisions that engage people in the exercise of their  constitutional responsibility, thereby strengthening the responsible sovereignty  of the people in every generation.  Neither of these parties cares to practice  government of, by and for the people.  That’s why Americans who believe in it  need urgently to construct a political vehicle that will.

Among many things I discuss in my book “Negrophilia:  From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession” is the lack of  accountability imposed and expected with regard to black Americans from the  lowest to the highest stations. This is a device of the political left; in its  inherent racism, it was only natural that liberals impart a lack of expectations  for this “culturally inferior” segment of society. It also made blacks easier to  manipulate as a group. Since blacks’ socioeconomic progress had been stultified  for so many years, the attendant propaganda was easier to sell to the  public.

Thus, where blacks are concerned, Americans at large (and black Americans  themselves) have been conditioned by politicos, activists and the media to  overlook and even expect such things as high rates of poverty and crime,  misfeasance in high places, nefarious tendencies, illegitimacy, and elements of  general social instability and poor character. These expectations have been so  thoroughly ingrained into our worldview that most Americans are not even  cognizant of the fact that they have been so conditioned.

So, in pursuing his diabolical Marxist agenda, Obama knew that he would be  able to gain far more ground than a white individual with the same plan. He may  not have known precisely how dedicated and effective the press would be, or how  long Americans would remain asleep, but he and his Cabinet had a pretty good  idea of how far they could go.

Or so one would think …

This  year’s summer blockbuster — a guide for Congress to draw up articles of  impeachment — Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack  Obama from Office”

Obama’s political opponents – the GOP leadership – also knew that their more  confrontational or controversial interactions with Obama would have to be  handled with extra diplomacy for the reasons listed above. In analyzing  Republican leaders’ deportment with regard to this president, we must ask  ourselves: How much of their reticence in holding Obama accountable was due to  fear of political fallout? How much was due to their low expectations of Obama  as a politician and a human being? How much may have been due to their approval  of aspects of his agenda?

The impudence and tyranny of the Obama administration is indeed  precedent-setting, as is the outrageousness and magnitude of the falsehoods it  is willing to offer in defense of same. Claims that the Internal Revenue  Service’s singling out of conservative groups for inordinate scrutiny is not  politically based is almost laughable, and akin to arguing that Jim Crow laws  were not racially based. Singling out a political group because of its politics  is politically based by definition. Press Secretary Jay Carney’s charges that  the Benghazi scandal is a Republican contrivance, and his comparison of the  Associated Press leak investigation to “birther” conspiracy theories is just  plain desperate.

It is the desperation of criminals.

The administration’s ideology, though odious, is still not on trial – but its  actions are. As a result of the inquiries focused on Benghazi, the IRS and the  Associated Press, their abject criminality is what elements of the press and  many Americans are beginning to perceive, even if they are late in so doing.  These issues deepen and reveal more untoward goings-on daily; as I write this,  evidence for at least three other potentially serious scandals has just broken  the surface in the press.

Circumstances have indeed changed – but to what degree? Some recent polls  demonstrate a startling percentage of people who believe Obama should be  impeached, and it is safe to say that no past president would have survived the  current spate of public indignities. Still, the final disposition comes down to  this: Who in Congress wants to be known as having brought down America’s first  black president?

Suddenly, Obama’s removal looks a lot less likely, yes?

Governing against the will of the people has been an increasing proclivity of  lawmakers in Washington, regardless of party. So it is altogether possible that  Congress will avoid initiating regime change for shallow and dangerous political  reasons, even if a majority of Americans are clamoring for Obama’s  impeachment.

Our federal government has clearly grown increasingly corrupt, but this  administration is one for the books. In the operative sense, ethnicity is  irrelevant to Barack Obama having betrayed the trust of the American people. It  is no consolation to me personally that I knew he would, and that the solemn  responsibility of stewardship over this great nation was a joke to him from the  start.

The question is: What are we going to do about it? Contrary to Marxists’  rhetorical glorification of “the masses” (utilized only to manipulate them,  naturally), historically the masses have never done anything. It is the  inspiration and motivation of visionaries, whether individuals or small groups  thereof, that initiates change in the world.

Evidently we need leaders, and they must be unifying ones. Though they will  have to be followed with judicious discretion, we still have to identify them  first – and we are running out of time.