Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Hussein O.'s impending impeachment

I've dealt with this several times to date, but not in an entry to this blog as I recall.

Ray Acosta Sr. writes at the Tenth Amendment Center:

Not to worry. As soon as Obama’s popularity gets low enough, he and all his cronies will be impeached.

Here's the deal in any event:

(1) You can't impeach the first black president no matter how low his approval ratings get. We live, my friends, in liberal dominated society. Get used to it, or do something about it.

(2) Even if you could, again, it isn't going to happen because those comprising the body invested with the impeachment responsibility have signed on to the Hussein agenda. Thus, if they impeached him, they'd be implicating themselves. Once again, it ain't going to happen on that basis alone.

(3) Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hussein was re-elected in 2012 BUT that Republicans re-took the majority in both houses of Congress. Hussein still wouldn't be impeached. Why? See rule no. 1. And if that isn't enough, refer to rule no. 2.

P.S. Lindsey Grahamnesty is a jackass (i.e., a liberal) from way back. Get that through your heads.

12 comments:

The_Editrix said...

Americans haven't even mustered up the balls to require that their president submits the necessary information regarding his eligibility so far, and there are people who seriously think that he will be IMPEACHED?

To watch that man becomes a creepier experience every day. By the way, his support is wearing thin at this end.

Terry Morris said...

Right on, Nora!

And, ya know, I just wonder (based on expressions of pipe dreams like this) whether Americans have, as a whole, taken in the full measure of what happened in November of '08? We didn't just elect Hussein O. to the presidency. No; we elected a leftist-socialist Congress to go along with him.

I'm glad to hear that his support is wearing thin on any end.

Call Me Mom said...

Amen to his support wearing thin anywhere! Let's hope the support for the socialists currently occupying Congressional seats is eroding too. It's time and past for Americans to reclaim their government.

September's gonna be interesting.

chiu_chunling said...

Nothing happened in 08.

America's fate was already written years before, I personally marked the point of no return from the outcome of the 96 election, but of course that was nearly inevitable itself. Indeed, no matter how much one might argue the "Great Man" theory of history, one has to acknowledge that there are grand forces and patterns that govern (among other things) which men will have an opportunity (and motive) to be great (which isn't exactly a dream job).

Every remotely perceptive commentator on the nature of democracies and the principles of a republic for the past three millennia has foreseen significant aspects and even some details of America's current crisis. The decadence of any society which manages to produce a measure of material security is practically the most irresistible force in human history.

Courage, moral and even physical, is the foundation of all other virtues. No people who are not forced to confront and overcome real dangers in order to participate fully in the life of their society ever did or could retain the character necessary to govern themselves responsibly. Because if you are chaste, honest, charitable, humble, reliable, or any other good thing, but only until you are endangered by it...then you are none of those things at all when it counts.

Of course, courage can just as easily be used in the cause of evil (not so much mere wickedness), so I wonder whether it should really be regarded as a moral good at all. Perhaps it is more like strength or intelligence than it is like justice or mercy. But whatever it is, you cannot have a land of the free unless it is the home of the brave. And that doesn't just happen on its own.

The_Editrix said...

When I was at university there was that discussion whether "Personengeschichte" -- history of great (or evil) personages -- or "Strukturgeschichte" -- history of, well, structures -- is the right way to see the past. I have left academia long ago and I don't know what the current trend is. However, I'd say that great (or evil) personages become important when they meet the appropriate structures. Without the "structures" of post-WWI Germany, the housepainter from Austria might have stayed that and without him things may have turned out differently and not quite that disastrous. He appealed to depths within the German soul about which one really doesn't WANT to know all that much. In the case of contemporary America (I am NOT comparing Obama to Hitler, mind you!) somebody like Obama could jump on the structural bandwagon. However, I think it is (or can potentially turn out as) a basically good thing. His stunning ineptitude alone will turn the next elections into a landslide, even if no impeachment takes place.

Should my theory that he is a Muslim mole be right, then something more drastic will happen and Americans will have to wake up more suddenly.

Each scenario will be helpful because it will remind Americans of their traditional virtues and values.

The_Editrix said...

I just had a look at VFR where Auster has published another interesting article. It mirrors my own thoughts and sentiments. I always had great reservations regarding Obama's politics, but I, like so many, thought that he was a seriously "nice guy". To be honest, now I can't stand the sight of his silly face anymore. When it comes to American presidents, only Bill Clinton evoked a similar reaction.

Mom, as for his thin-wearing support: Here in Germany, the process is more slow, but subtly discernible. The Messiah DOES seem have some minor flaws, after all. That is a great step forward, as Obama's anti-Americanism was directly mirrored by the pop-star cult-status he was awarded in the most anti-American country worldwide (and yes, the Muslim countries included). A friend of mine who lives in France says that the French media has totally dropped the fawning bull, and I noticed that the Brits are not so enamoured with him anymore since he treated their PM like shit, and I have a hunch even more so since Michelle gave the Queen a shoulder rub.

chiu_chunling said...

See, I define the entire conflict between "great man" and "grand forces" differently. A great man doesn't simply take advantage of the prevailing social trends the way Hitler did. The unthinking movements of popular opinion do not require particular individuals to champion them (being popular opinions, after all, provides them with all the support they need).

If events would have happened just the same without the particular genius of a given man, then he cannot be counted as a "Great Man". The entire point is that some individuals change the outcome that would have been expected of a given historic pattern.

Hitler merely rode the wave. A "Great Man" must claim to turn the tide. Otherwise everyone who happens to be involved in historic events has to be considered "Great". Obama lacks even Hitler's sense of personal conviction and destiny...yet he easily fills the same role on an even grander scale. If Obama can be a "Great Man" in history, then the term is completely meaningless.

The_Editrix said...

I can't think spontaneously of one man who ever turned the tide in history on his own. Whom do you have in mind?

And of course Obama is no great man by any definition, not even a great evil man.

Call Me Mom said...

Chiu, Would George Washington qualify as a great man by his refusal to serve another or longer term as president?

chiu_chunling said...

Washington counts as a "Great Man" for reasons too numerous to list, though certainly he made a significant mark on history just by establishing the principle of a term limited Presidency.

The key isn't to turn the tide "on your own"...that's not how it works. But you do have to change the basic flow of events to qualify. The basic flow of events in the American colonies was towards a subject population living under effective martial law to economically support the British war efforts against the other colonial powers.

Why didn't that happen? Because of the efforts of some extraordinary men living in those colonies who didn't want to live as serfs or slaves, even if the alternative was likely death.

The pattern of the American states before the Civil War was an entrenchment of slavery in the South and economic division along the "Mason-Dixon line", with increasing economic power and wealth accruing to the Northern States along with the flow of immigrants necessary to populate the newly forming western states.

There were many sympathetic to the promotion of slavery who sought to change that flow, but they cannot be counted as great because, not only did they fail to change the flow of events in the direction they wanted, but actually provoked those in the North who would have been satisfied with the existing trend. Among them an obscure fellow from Kentucky...who rose to prominence by clearly and powerfully espousing positions that were often wildly unpopular at the time.

There were 300 great men at Thermopylae, who turned the tide of Persian expansion into Greece. None of the acted alone, but they did succeed in fundamentally altering the course of events. Why did the Spartans send only 300 men out of their entire nation, a nation more fully devoted to readiness for war than any known human society before or since?

Because they wanted to make sure that every single man they sent there was a hero (actually, they sent more than 300, but only the selected heroes were counted). What they accomplished in turning back the tide at Thermopylae was less remarkable than the fact that the Spartans trusted them to do it, to hold back the million-strong army of Xerxes long enough to mobilize the full strength of Sparta.

Of course, the individual making that decision went to Thermopylae himself to do the turning of the tide in person, at the cost of his own life along with those of his men. He wasn't alone, but he did turn the tide.

Changing the course of history is difficult. Not only does it generally demand enormous ability, it always involves great sacrifice as well, usually of things that are of immense importance to those doing it. So there does tend to be a laudatory aspect to identifying anyone as a "Great Man" in history. But of course ability and determination can be used for evil as well as good.

It's just that...most of the evil in the world doesn't require anything other than common human vice.

The_Editrix said...

The key isn't to turn the tide "on your own"...that's not how it works. But you do have to change the basic flow of events to qualify.

Chiu, not to "be right" at any cost, just to keep an interesting discussion going: Methinks your definition is not any different from mine.

chiu_chunling said...

Probably not. But the point is not whether or not Obama is a "Great Man". What I'm saying is that American has been sliding down this ditch a long time now, pushed along by the historical force sometimes called the "Lowest Common Denominator" factor.

Not that this tide won't be turned. It turns out that history is about to discover another prime number.