PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE "I" WORD

Can you say "Impeachment"? I have a friend who did recently, and it cleared the room. It's almost a  taboo word, but Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann used it recently, and it's being uttered and printed more than you may realize.  Please read the last several comments on the last post of this site for a short example of the latest, mostly whispered political buzz, and sure fire way to kill any polite conversation. In spite of its presently hushed tone, this may become the most behind the scenes word of the year---but is there substantial reason or more to the point, enough evidence to support such a charge against Obama? Of course, you won't read too much of this incendiary word in the newspapers or elsewhere---the  general media obviously doesn't share all the news, in particular news that may be too--- well, incendiary. against their agenda, which is generally liberal.

But before you get too excited, one way or the other, please consider that Impeachment is only the first step in removing a president from office It is not a new concept, and has been brought up many times previously, but only formally used three times---i.e. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.  It is not uncommon, but can be a hard charge to sell, and even harder to bring to the ultimate conclusion, especially under a Democratic Senate. Both Johnson and Clinton were impeached, but acquitted and not removed from office. Richard Nixon resigned before being being removed. The House of Representatives can Impeach, but only the Senate can remove a president. So, the issue of impeachment in this case, with a Democrat Senate, is certainly never going to result in the removal of Obama---it would serve only to curb, to give notice, ---- and that is the question. Is it necessary, and would it be worth it?

Truth to tell, Americans don't much care to impeach, much less, unseat a seated president.  It is disturbing, disruptive to the nation, and in some ways an indictment against the judgment of the very people who put the president in office initially, the majority of the American people. Even Bill Clinton, who was accused of shockingly unsavory, unethical acts while in office, was Impeached, but managed to stay in office. The people deemed him, though perhaps not ethical or moral,  still fit to run a country with good intent. We give our presidents the benefit of the doubt, because basically we want to believe that they mean well, have our best interests at heart, are human---and we don't like to admit we may have made a major mistake in electing them.  But still, the option is there for a reason---to stop an out of control president before he damages the office or the country any further.

So, does Obama need stopping?? And do his actions rise to the level of impeachment? If you don't think so, you should at least know that there are others beside Ms. Bachmann who do, including some members of the Senate and the House. In fact, Obama's reign of president has been so fraught with outcries of wrong doing, including unconstitutionality, illegal acts, and even tyranny that one wonders why those making the charges haven't taken the next step. His over reach of executive power is stunning, to name just a few: Federal appointments without congressional approval based on his incorrect definition and abuse of congressional "recess"; his discriminate, illegal healthcare changes and exemptions  to favor certain of his constituents,  and his refusal to enforce immigration laws already on the books. "I've got a  pen and I've got a phone", he said in a recent speech, as to how he would go about legislating in the future. Dictatorial, determined, and an in your face belligerent denial of his executive limits, Obama dazzles and boggles in an odd way that is paradoxical to his failure to do so on the international stage, where we could use a little bluster and bravado. There is no "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Instead, he seems overly ingratiating and reluctant to use his power abroad, bending over backwards to appease and apologize.  But at home he is outrageously disdainful of procedural, balanced government , and even bullying at times.  His divisive speeches as he rails against economic inequality run counter to his run up of our national debt by six trillion dollars, the slowest recession recovery since the depression, a staggering 35 percent of people unemployed, and more people on food stamps than ever before.  His policies have not worked, but he relies heavily on his loyal base and a faith that his oratorical skills will lull the people into acceptance and resignation, no matter what his failings----but what of those in congress whose job is to recognize, curb, and halt such abuses?

Could it be that the price of Impeachment is not, in the opinion of those in power, worth the chaos and damage to the psyche of the country? Or is it that congress itself is too invested in their careers to upset the apple cart of behind- the- scenes political machinations? Are there too many secrets, webs, and lies that would have to be uncovered to get to the bottom of such things as the Ben Ghazi attack, the Syrian crisis, the Fast and Furious Mexican gun trading fiasco, not to mention the incredible IRS scandal. We have gone through the motions of investigations on all these issues, yet nothing seems to result---nobody is blamed, demoted, or fired. But where is the outrage of people like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell---and even we dare say, a few Democrats who must cringe as they are forced to salute and acquiesce to among other things, a health care law that was predicated on a lie and so far isn't working well, and finally, a president who keeps insisting he knew nothing about anything, refusing to take any responsibility, or enforce any accountability .

 But ultimately, Impeachment is weighed in the court of public opinion, and that has everything to do with one's political persuasion. Is Obama an out of control president, abusing his executive power , inflicting untold damage to a country founded in desperate opposition to heavy handed government?  Or is he simply acting out his duties and goals as he perceives them to be? A man who was elected by a majority of the electorate, who believes he knows best, and is working the only way he knows how against a House of Representatives hell bent to defeat him, and whose ends and goals justify the means? I believe Obama's intentions are good, in that he believes in his cause----but  blatant disregard of our laws is troubling, and it begs examination. Are we up to it, or are we too afraid to speak up?  And what will be the price of silence?

It is an interesting question, and one which can break up civil conversations faster than those of racial
or religious content. But it is one which should invite and allow for debate, even among polite, tolerant conversation, because both sides deserve to be heard, not shut up or made to feel inappropriate. Our future, and how we wish to proceed is at stake. Impeachment now is perhaps  a matter of opinion, and perhaps an exercise in futility---but involvement,  awareness, and discussion among ourselves may be the only thing standing between us and a government who can make and break laws as they see fit---including the right to free speech. Don't think that could happen? Can you say IRS scandal? Ask the supporters of the targeted Tea Party, who suddenly were afraid to donate for fear of recrimination. Rights don't disappear suddenly. They slowly fade away in rooms of people too afraid  to discuss their thoughts, whether it be a congressional hearing or social gathering--- too politically correct and duty bound to superiors to be anything but polite and evasive, even as they see and sense something is terribly wrong.

 Our founders meant for Impeachment to be used sparingly and very carefully---because they knew how politically dangerous the abuse of it could be. The Impeachable offenses have to be almost completely devoid of partisanship, rise above idealogical disagreement, and must meet the criteria of very serious harm to a nation.  Do we have that going on now? That still may depend on your political bent, and how you perceive right from wrong ----for now we remain a country extremely forgiving and tolerant of even our worst leaders. Like a marriage, we promised to love, honor, and obey for better or for worse--- may our trust not be betrayed, and may the President uphold his end of the bargain.

One last personal, may surprise you, thought---similar to a marriage in trouble, one looks at what could have been different---Barack Obama, the first black man ever to be elected to the presidency of the United States, could have grasped the opportunity to be a great and magnificent president of all the people----he had the tools and capacity to bring us all together, to see both sides, and to champion changes in a manner that would  have made us stronger, smarter, and a more enlightened country. His diverse background, mixed race, intelligence, ability to connect, and even his world view to a point, could have been used to mix and blend with our more parochial views in a less threatening, dominating way. He could have been the Ronald Reagan or Jack Kennedy of our time. Instead, he chose to be more a politician, and a kind of rogue president, rather than a true leader----it has not turned out well for him, or for us.  How sad---and how very, very disappointing.