Republican Say the “I” Word

04 Dec

In yet another episode of mass suicide, Republicans in the House are now talking about impeaching President Obama.  Never mind small issues like the Constitutional requirement of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”…

President Obama has certainly pushed the edge of Executive Power.  However I don’t see how he could not to keep the country operating with a Republican Congress which has done everything in their power to destroy the country.

The only “High Crime” I can see is President Obama’s failure to do some things required by law. That is to prosecute and bring to justice the people responsible for lying us into the Iraq War, who illegally tortured captives, illicitly caused the homicidal deaths of over 5,000 American men and women in the Military,  and through collateral damage are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqi women and children. It is the President’s job, through his Attorney General to enforce the law.

Of course the problem with the President doing that if followed to its logical conclusion to include co-conspirators and collaborators, there wouldn’t be enough Republicans left in the House or Senate to make a majority anymore.

I certainly respect President Obama’s position to protect the Office of the Presidency by not starting a precedent for the incoming Administration to punish members of the old with investigations and prosecution…

But does anyone truly believe anymore that today’s crop of Tea Bagged Republicans actually have any respect or regard  for our Democracy and Constitution when they have abused the filibuster to try and block virtually every Presidential appointee, attempted to send the country into fiscal insolvency, and failed to pass any legislation the past 3 years? That “Shutdown Ted” Cruz were he to win the Presidency would have the foresight or integrity not to abuse the office like some Third World tinpot Dictator  to punish political rivals?

Who would stop him? The Supreme Court? Who believes in the impartiality or legitimacy of the Court after the 2000 Bush v Gore politically partisan decision? The corporate “personhood” decision allowing the flood of secret money into politics…And the subsequent financial relationships with the Koch Brothers who are the largest “dark money” financiers of the far right.

Of course then there are the inevitable comparisons with the Clinton Impeachment. What Republicans had before the top 3 most powerful Republicans, along with many of the rabid Impeachment supporters in the Congress bodies hit the floor for committing exactly the same sins as they were accusing Clinton -and the prosecution of the Iraq War and Economic Meltdown… Was legitimacy. I mean look at the poll numbers for the Republican Congress…Only slightly more people approve of them than the number who enjoy head lice. And if you will remember that bloodletting during and after the Clinton Impeachment – what would you like to bet there won’t be 20 more Rep. Trey Radel’s uncovered?

They quite simply don’t have the legitimacy anymore to manufacture a case.



Republicans see one remedy for Obama: impeachment

History will record that on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary met to consider the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.

They didn’t use that word, of course. Republican leaders frown on such labeling because it makes the House majority look, well, crazy.

It is, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said from the dais, “the word that we don’t like to say in this committee, and I’m not about to utter here in this particular hearing.”

One of the majority’s witnesses, Georgetown law professor Nicholas Rosenkranz, encouraged the Republicans not to be so shy. “I don’t think you should be hesitant to speak the word in this room,” he said. “A check on executive lawlessness is impeachment.”

This gave the lawmakers courage. “I’m often asked this,” said Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) “You got to go up there, and you just impeach him.”

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), who has said there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, added: “We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate. . . . Is there anything else we can do?”

Why, yes, there is, congressman: You can hold hearings that accomplish nothing but allow you to sound fierce for your most rabid constituents.

The Republicans in the House know there is no chance of throwing this president from office. Yet at least 13 of the 22 Republicans on the panel have threatened or hinted at impeachment of Obama, his appointees or his allies in Congress. They’ve proposed this as the remedy to just about every dispute or political disagreement, from Syria to Obamacare.

Tuesday’s hearing was titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws.” The unanimous view among Republicans was that Obama had not done his duty, and it’s true that this president has stretched the bounds of executive authority almost as much as his predecessor, whose abuses bothered Republicans much less (and Democrats much more).

But what to do about it? They’ve failed at cutting off funding, they’ve had difficulty suing Obama in court and they lost the 2012 election. That basically leaves them with the option of making loud but ineffectual noises about high crimes and misdemeanors.

In recent days, Rep. Steve Stockman (Tex.), one of the more exotic members of the Republican caucus, has distributed proposed Articles of Impeachment to his colleagues. Last month, 20 House Republicans filed Articles of Impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder. Around that time, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) accused Obama of “impeachable offenses.”

Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.), before his cocaine arrest and guilty pleainvoked the prospect of impeaching Obama over gun policy. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) raised the specter of impeachment over Obama’s threat to bomb Syria without congressional approval. Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.) said it would be his “dream come true” to write the Articles of Impeachment, and Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.) said that if “the House had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach the president.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe said Obama could be impeached over the attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, while fellow Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said in August that Obama was “getting perilously close” to meeting the standard for impeachment (though he called Obama a “personal friend”). Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) thought it would have been an impeachable offense if Obama unilaterally raised the debt ceiling. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) branded Obama “lawless.”

On the House Judiciary panel, impeachment has been floated by GOP Reps. Jason Chaffetz (over Benghazi), Louie Gohmert and King (default on the debt), Darrell Issa (presidential patronage), Trent Franks (Defense of Marriage Act enforcement) and Lamar Smith (who said Obama’s record on immigration comes “awfully close” to violating the oath of office). Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) gets creativity points for proposing the impeachment of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

At Tuesday’s hearing, the committee chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), accused Obama of “picking and choosing which laws to enforce” and of being “the first president since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly enacted law simply because he disagrees with it.”

Contributed Smith: “The president has ignored laws, failed to enforce laws, undermined laws and changed laws, all contrary to the Constitution.”

The majority’s witnesses added to the accusations. George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley said Obama had “claimed the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.”

This excited Franks, who embraced impeachment back in 2011. Obama’s actions, he said, “could be considered royal prerogatives, which is, if my history’s right, what we had that little unpleasantness with Great Britain about.”

Yikes! Why bother with impeachment? They need a revolution.


Tags: , , , , , ,

8 responses to “Republican Say the “I” Word

  1. Mike

    December 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM

    It’s to bad that the electorate wasn’t informed of what Obama is up to including; lies regarding the promise that people could keep their healthcare policies, Obama’s unconstitutional executive legislation arbitrarily changing laws to try and save the ACA law when it’s the responsibilities of Congress to legislate changes to “settled law” as Obama describes as “settle law” because if the electorate had been aware what Obama is really up to then Romney would have won the election according to current polls. What does this mean? It means that Obama’s win in the last election was only possible by keeping the TRUTH from the people. If it weren’t for LIES and OBFUSCATION the people would have been able to make an informed decision which would have ironically resulted in a different outcome. And what does that mean exactly? What it means is that this administration is essentially fraudulent in nature because the only reason this administration is in office at this time is because of ill-informed voters that were kept in the dark by this administration. The Obama goals to keep the electorate in the dark worked for the last election, but unfortunately for this administration Obama is finding it increasingly difficult to hide his agenda going forward even with all of the legislation from the executive office postponing “settled law” deadlines legally in place in order to keep as much information from the public as possible for as long as possible. The more the public becomes aware of the ACA law the more they opposed the law, so it’s no wonder the administration is working frantically postponing every deadline that would bring sunshine how the ACA law will impact the people.

    One other note worthy of mentioning is the rampant hypocrisy practiced by Democrats. Why is it that Democrats like Harry Reed who is one of the most vehement supporter of Obamacare in Congress will not subject themselves to the ACA law. Reed won’t even require his staff to have to sign up for Obamacare amazingly enough. It’s is altogether duplicitous for Congress, more specifically the Democrats to refuse to live under the very laws they pass and require the general public to live under. On the other hand, where do we see any honesty as far as requiring those who make the laws have to live up to the laws they pass? No surprise here, it’s the Republicans that are drawing up bill after bill that will require the law-makers that make the laws be required to live within the laws they pass such as the most recently proposed Grassley amendment that does not allow Congress to exempt themselves from the laws they pass, link: How novel, require the law makers live within their own laws!!!! Again, it’s the Republicans not the hypocritical Democrats that propose such a novel notion. Frankly the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for requiring the general public to adhere to laws they pass when the fact of the matter is they not only actively exempt themselves from such laws but actually support this notion legislative as well. I ask you, how can any “liberal” condone this type of behavior?


    • btx3

      December 4, 2013 at 7:15 PM

      Uhhhhhh…Mike…There is nothing President Obama has done to “change” the Law, as supported by the fact the 5 Conservative Judge Supreme Court just tossed out the latest right wing wet dream.

      The worst features of Obamacare are the very features that conservatives want to impose on all federal social policy: means-testing, a major role for the states, and subsidies to private providers instead of direct public provision of health or retirement benefits. This is not surprising, because Obamacare’s models are right-wing models — the Heritage Foundation’s healthcare plan in the 1990s and Mitt Romney’s “Romneycare” in Massachusetts. These are the very things added by conservatives to the Bill when Obama stupidly negotiated with conservatives. Were it not for Obama kowtowing to conservatives, the ACA would have been a very straightforward single-payer plan.

      The fact you fell for the “Democrats exempted themselves” bullshit, is symptomatic of the typical conservative ignorance of how the Congress works. Here is an article from the WSJ back in April which describes the history of the practice – which goes back over a century. I believe it was a Republican majority Congress which actually exempted themselves from having to pay their staffers minimum wage. Both parties do it, and have done it for years. Insofar as who in Congress is responsible for the exemption – that would beSenator Chuck Grassley, a Republican…

      Again from a normally conservative source “Outside the Beltway”, and “The National Review” – you have been made a useful fool by the rope-a-dope –

      The only problem, as National Review’s Patrick Brennan points out, is that there really isn’t a “Congressional Exemption” at all. As Brennan explains, the whole issue has its origins in the fact that, unlike anyone else in America, Members of Congress and Congressional employees were forced onto the exchange via an amendment first introduced by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley that he now says was vastly re-written from what he originally intended. Because of that mandatory exchange membership, though, Congressional employees were placed at a distinct disadvantage vis a vis other Americans:

      The law thus treats Congress and its staff substantially differently than all other Americans. Many Americans who now get insurance coverage from their employer may end up having to go on the exchanges; but only congressional employees are actually forced onto them, with the option of an employer plan prohibited by law. In the private sector, some of the savings from ending employer plans can go to higher wages, which employees can use to buy insurance from the exchanges. (Though that contribution will probably be after-tax earnings, rather than the pre-tax premium contributions employers make now.) It’s possible there will be exceptions, but for the most part the market simply won’t allow companies to cut an employee’s compensation by as much as yanking away their entire employer health-care contribution amounts to.

      While Trader Joe’s, for instance, is discontinuing its health-insurance plan for part-time employees, the company will be giving each of them $500 a year — which sounds like a pittance, but when it is combined with the subsidies that low-wage employees like these will receive, coverage on the exchanges will actually cost most employees less out-of-pocket than what they got from their employer. There will be no such substitution in congressional offices, because the amendment does not increase the budget for legislative salaries. Some congressional employees would receive tax-credit subsidies on the individual market, like low-wage workers, but most would not.
      When you hear about a “congressional exemption” from Obamacare, this refers to the fact that the Office of Personnel Management, part of the executive branch, has chosen to make up for this differential treatment by paying part of congressional employees’ health-care premiums on the new exchanges. They haven’t been “exempted” from the amendment that forces them onto the exchanges, in a way no other American is.


  2. roderick2012

    December 5, 2013 at 8:36 AM

    Btx, you do attract the trolls and nutters.


    • Mike

      December 6, 2013 at 5:03 AM

      Wow, you can’t be serious to suggest that Obama hasn’t change the ACA law numerous times. Do you pay attention at all to what’s going on? I could do this all day. Employer mandate and small business deadlines were both an integral part of the law that have now been postponed until ironically after the mid-term elections that are examples of just two of the most recent changes to the ACA law done by executive fiat totally absent any legislation from congress which is where laws are supposed to be passed and modified based on constitutional statutes. Call me a cynic but I smell politics just as I do when Obama extended the start of the open enrollment window for next year until surprise surprise after the mid-term election which is just another example of Obama legislating from the executive office. If you don’t see these moves by Obama as political then your frankly not as smart as I’ve believed you to be, of which you can say what you want but I know you really do know better than to claim otherwise.

      I have no idea what your reference to the Supreme Courts rejection to hear a challenge has anything to do with what I’m talking about.

      As to your apparent illusion that the Republicans were in anyway a part of the ACA law I’ll refer you to the fact that NOT ONE Republican has voted for the law in either the House or the Senate.

      You do realize THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED, don’t you? No other bill that involves this much of an impact on the American people has EVER been passed without the input and by-partisan support from both sides of the Isle. Please don’t tell me that you think this isn’t the first time in the history of this country that such a largess public policy as this has not been recognized by the party in power the need to allow by-partisan involvement and contributions by the minority party.

      For example, I know your a smart person so I’m assuming you know the vote count regarding the implementation of Medicare, but just in case here are the voting results in congress:

      Vote count on the Medicare Act of 1965:

      yea 57-D 13-R
      nay 7-D 17-R

      yea 237-D 70-R
      nay 48-D 68-R

      You cannot deny that there was obviously by-partisan support for the Medicare Act, RIGHT?


      Again let me remind you that the ACA law was passed on a purely partisan vote as again, I’m sure you are aware.



      That is enough to clue you in to the fact that this is exclusively a Democrat law, PERIOD (as Obama likes to say when he promises no one will lose their insurance or doctor if the like both, PERIOD)

      I’m aware of these totally false claims from the left that the ACA law is a Republican “right-wing” model.

      This unadulterated gibberish that the ACA law is an outgrowth of a “right-wing” model is nothing more than the left’s “talking points” and is pure spin. You need to stop reading the one sided bias from the left.

      I would close by saying that your support of a single-payer Healthcare system tells me all I need to know about your misguided position on the topic. Socialized medicine does not work well anywhere in the world that it has been implemented. Anyone that would support socialized medicine has no idea how medical coverage will be impacted in such massively negative ways. If you like limited doctors, longer wait times to see doctors, less quality coverage then keep on supporting your position. All you need to do is talk to the Brits on this topic who have to wait months to get medical procedures done. All you have to know is that Canadians come to the U.S. when they are diagnosed with cancer because they can’t afford the wait time for chemotherapy. Please inform yourself on these things and try and stop reading your liberal sources that skew the truth in ways to support their rigid agenda.


      • btx3

        December 7, 2013 at 4:53 PM

        One of the less amusing traits of conservatives is ignorance. If you are going to try and use a big word like “socialism” then do yourself a favor and at least get a pedestrian understanding of what it actually means.

        Neither Obamacare or Single Payer are “socialism”…

        FACT: The Affordable Care Act Is Not Socialized Medicine Or A Government Takeover Of Health Care

        PolitiFact Named “Government Takeover Of Health Care” As Its 2010 “Lie Of The Year.” In its article declaring “a government takeover of health care” to be the Lie of the Year, PolitiFact explained how the law “relies largely on the free market” and “private companies”:

        “Government takeover” conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:

        Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
        Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up “exchanges” where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don’t have it.
        The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
        The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
        The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
        PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.

        It’s true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market.

        As to how this rediculous and false term entered the conservative lexicon go Here

        As for the “waiting line” myth –


  3. Mike

    December 10, 2013 at 10:48 PM

    You obviously don’t read well, you might notice that I NEVER called Obamacare “socialized medicine” and I NEVER used the word “socialism” either. You might want to read what I wrote over again and when you do please try and discard your preconceived notions and expectations. Your “chopping at the bit” to unjustly marginalize me by falsely assuming I’m saying something that I DID NOT speaks to your need to create a misconception on your part in order to diminish the cogent points I’ve offered to you that you are unable to counter.

    The paragraph below is the only place I ever mentioned “socialized medicine” and it was in response to this comment by you: “Were it not for Obama kowtowing to conservatives, the ACA would have been a very straightforward single-payer plan.” So obviously my reference to the phrase was an appropriate reply to your comment and was the only reason I even brought it up.

    Here is what I wrote in reply to your reference to “single-payer plan” in the comment above (which as you should know IS socialized medicine btw): “…. your support of a single-payer Healthcare system tells me all I need to know about your misguided position on the topic. Socialized medicine does not work well anywhere in the world that it has been implemented. Anyone that would support socialized medicine has no idea how medical coverage will be impacted in such massively negative ways. If you like limited doctors, longer wait times to see doctors, less quality coverage then keep on supporting your position. All you need to do is talk to the Brits on this topic who have to wait months to get medical procedures done. All you have to know is that Canadians come to the U.S. when they are diagnosed with cancer because they can’t afford the wait time for chemotherapy. Please inform yourself on these things and try and stop reading your liberal sources that skew the truth in ways to support their rigid agenda.”

    You’ll notice I mentioned the phrase “socialized medicine” TWO TIMES and it was BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED “SINGLE-PAYER PLAN” which as again as I’ve pointed out YOU SHOULD KNOW IS CLEARLY “SOCIALIZED MEDICINE”.

    Please notice that I NEVER used the words “socialized medicine” in context with ANYTHING ELSE other than to reference what YOU SAID ABOUT “SINGLE-PAYER PLAN”. And again, I NEVER used the word “socialism” at anytime.

    It appears your ultra-sensitive on the subject to the extent that you’ve totally fabricating allegations toward me that I am in some way saying something that I am absolutely NOT SAYING in order for you to try and accuse me of “ignorance” on a topic that I can assure you I am fully aware of as far as the meaning and ramifications of “socialized medicine” and how it can negatively impact to the field of medicine and medical service in general.

    Nice try, but not surprisingly your desire to find a some way to unjustly marginalize me by categorizing me within your per-conceived concept of what you falsely characterize “conservatives” to be is frankly very revealing. Your failed attempt to define me as an “ignorant conservative” that you apparently generalize to most if not all “conservatives” in order to demean those who may not agree with your misplaced “liberal” convictions does nothing other than to define your own ignorance unfortunately. We can only hope that at some point you make an effort to open your mind and discard the limitations you set upon yourself because of your “liberal” dogma so that you can ultimately perceive the world in a rational way.

    The fact that you CANNOT show where I EVER mentioned “socialized medicine” in ANY OTHER context than when you brought it up first should off you a clue how misguided your point of view actually happens to be. And I would add the fact that all you can do is fall back on making these false accusations as opposed to actually addressing any of my cogent points that you apparently cannot deny is very revealing and frankly sad and should also clue you in to your misplaced ideas on this topic.


    • btx3

      December 11, 2013 at 6:20 PM

      Uhhh … Mike you might want to rad up on your own reading and writing comprehension. You said in your first post –

      ” Socialized medicine does not work well anywhere in the world that it has been implemented.”

      Then you claim –

      “You obviously don’t read well, you might notice that I NEVER called Obamacare “socialized medicine” and I NEVER used the word “socialism” either. “

      Now you want me to argue with you…When you can’t even get your own story straight from post to post?


      • Mike

        December 13, 2013 at 1:41 AM

        I’ll try one last time, go back to my last post you’ll see the following: “… it was in response to this comment by you: ‘Were it not for Obama kowtowing to conservatives, the ACA would have been a very straightforward single-payer plan.’ So obviously my reference to the phrase was an appropriate reply to your comment and was the only reason I even brought it up.”

        YOU were the one that brought up “SINGLE-PAYER” RIGHT?


        Again, for the last time I was NOT equating Obamacare to “socialized-medicine”, I was REPLYING TO YOUR COMMENT THAT OBVIOUSLY COMPLAINS ABOUT Obama “cowtowing to conservatives” which prevented what you’d obviously prefer that being “a very straightforward single-payer plan”, YOUR WORDS NOT MINE.


        So do you FINALLY UNDERSTAND how you have falsely accused me of equating Obamacare to “socialized-medicine” which is WRONG?


        Now that I’m thinking about it, I’m not sure why I should expect anything different, it is my experience that “liberals” tend to stray off subject and obfuscate for the very reason that they cannot address the irrational positions they hold when this is pointed out to them.

        So I’ll leave this conversation at that and recommend you diligently read the entire conversation thread in the event you really do want to discuss the topic in an honest manner, otherwise if you still want to continue to distort and obfuscate then I see no point in continuing the discussion.

        The fact that Obama Gets PolitiFact’s ‘Lie Of The Year’ Prize LINK: should at least make you stop and contemplate how wrong your positions are about your hero OBAMA and his ACA law that was passed in a totally partisan manner with not one Republican voting for the law which as I’ve already POINTED OUT IN THIS CONVERSATION STREAM IS TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED WHEN IT COMES TO PASSING A LAW OF THIS KIND THAT IMPACTS EVERY AMERICAN AND NEARLY ONE FIFTH OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY (you’ll notice that the Democrats understood about by-partisanship pre-Obama era when for example Medicare was passed in a by-partisan manner).

        You might also consider one other piece of logic: Obama is starting an media blitz to try and sell his ACA law as you must already know. Can you at least consider the logic that if the ACA law is such a “benefit” to everyone as Obama (and you I presume) claim then why would there be a need to go on an ad campaign to convince people to get involved in the first place. HAVE YOU POSSIBLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT?

        Oh and don’t try and suggest that the ACA law needs to be explained better, PLEASE, PEOPLE ARE NOT AS DUMB AS YOU AND OBAMA THINK THEY ARE!!!! People understand when they’ve been lied too and they understand when something does not make any sense. Clearly the AD CAMPAIGN is to try and pander to the young that Obama assumes wrongly are unable to comprehend what the whole add campaign is really about which is to basically try and hoodwink them into doing something that the young already know does not make any sense. As has always been the case, the LEFT assume that people for the most part are inherently helpless, unable to do much on their own and basically can’t get along without government involvement in as many aspects of the peoples lives as the LEFT can convince the people is necessary. Fact is Obamacare is an absolute train-wreck and unfortunately you happen to be on the wrong train.

        But don’t let me confuse you with facts that as I pointed out to you before you have totally ignore but instead have elected to go off topic and charge me with the false allegations that due to my “ignorance” that you falsely attribute to most “conservatives” by accusing me of equating Obamacare to “socialized-medicine” which you’d understand is absolutely not the case if you were honest about it and really did take the time to read. Perhaps this is beyond your understanding, so as I said if you continue to still hold the same opinion then we can simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: