Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Why Obama may be Impeached

There is a common and well founded conception that this country of the United States will never impeach President Obama because he is the first black President.

There are suspicions of illegal fundraising through undocumented credit card donations from the very first Obama Presidential campaign. There is ‘Fast and Furious’ which lead to deaths of our own agents as well as multiple deaths in Mexico at the ends of guns supplied by the Eric Holder justice department. There are the illegal intimidation tactics against the media and their sources that go back to and begin with Obama’s first term. There is the use of the IRS and other Executive Branch institutions to target and harass conservative movements, donors to conservative causes and conservative businesses. Remember the closing of the GM franchises when the government gained control. Then we have Benghazi and a complete dereliction of duty. These are but a few and the major issues of malfeasance this administration has institutionalized in the Executive Branch.

Peggy Noonan on “Meet the Press” this last Sunday said concerning the IRS scandal; “If it doesn’t stop now it will never stop, …The only way it can stop is if, frankly, a price is paid.”

The reason to impeachment President Obama from the Republican perspective is that the law must be enforced evenly for all. The idea that some people are above the law, or that we should take exception because of race is considered unacceptable not only from the viewpoint of equal enforcement but from the view that it degrades the whole rule of law in society. This is especially serious in that the United States has been the beacon of righteousness for many in the world and the concept that no one is above the law has a great deal to do with this faith.

This perspective is all too clear to conservatives but not to all republicans. It rightly suggests that the very survival of this nation is at stake. But back to the opening conjecture; what are the reasons people believe Obama will never be impeached because he is black?

Racial riots are a distinct possibility. In defense of Obama a hate filled racial fervor could be stoked, tearing this nation apart. In the least any attempt to impeach Obama would bring down media ridicule  and disgust upon the republicans on an unprecedented level. They would be labeled racists. Not only labeled akin to the KKK but believed to be, among what has come to be known as the low information voter. Why go through all this if the Senate would never convict the President because it is under democrat party control?

Could you ever dream that party would trump right and wrong in this nation, especially when there is (OK, will be) a complete overpowering case against Obama? Race, forced equality, has become the new value system of this nation. It is propagated in our schools and pounded into the public psyche by a partisan media day after day. Has political correctness finally replaced the Ten Commandments or the concept that our rights are inalienable; coming from God? The reality is, the public is well conditioned against opposing the first black President.

So why would I suggest that Obama will be impeached? …and convicted!? First, the democrats could care less about the black man. Look at our failing inner city schools after decades of democrat party municipal rule. Democrat policies destroyed the black family and then their youth. The eugenics movement known as Planned Parenthood, a democrat mainstay, is committing a genocide against the black race. Democrat Robert Byrd our longest living Senator, a former high ranking officer of the KKK who recently died, was hailed as a hero to the cause. A man who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 along with Al Gore Sr.. Yes, it was the republicans who freed the slaves and passed the Civil Rights Act that the democrats opposed, …in both cases.

Obama is the ideal ruler embodying the ideology and tactics of the left, highlighting racial divisions; divisions that the democrats have used very effectively. But what about 2016? Unless Obama is going to scrap the Constitution and proclaim himself ruler for life, ala Hugo Chevez, a distinct possibility, there must be an election.

As it stands now Obama cannot run again. Who do the democrats have to run? Michelle? Hillary Clinton is the only one with the name recognition, or gravitas, and the preparation to run. The problem? Benghazi! The blame has all been placed on Hillary. The answer to one question solves all of Hillary’s problems; Where was Obama during those nine hours our citizens were being murdered? All blame can be lifted from Hillary and placed on squarely Obama’s shoulders, not only for the nines hours but all the policy decisions that lead to the massacre. Hillary becomes the martyr, simply doing what she had been told and protecting Obama by taking all the blame. Poor Hillary.

I believe there is a strong possibility that the democrats will throw Obama under the bus, or at least into the back, to win in 2016. It is a double win because they can still accuse the republicans of being racist for impeaching Obama. There will be just enough votes from the democrats to convict.

Even if Obama is not impeached or forced to resign, he will be thrown under the bus at the end of his term. It is the only way Hillary has a chance. The only alternatives for the democrats is to go for it all by suspending elections, or simply criminalizing the republican party and all conservative causes, and taking authoritarian control of the media. Something completely in line with the administrations policies as they are now being reveled.

In fact, why not throw Obama under the bus, impeach and convict him? It would have to be after 2014 of course, when the tea party gains even more power. Hillary’s campaign, after capitalizing off Obama, can then run to vindicate Obama and bring to an end once and for all the evil conservative movement that plagues this nation. Lacks logic? Common sense? It is perfect logic to those who disdain the truth. Or in other words, …all according to plan.

But what Peggy Noonan said is true;“If it doesn’t stop now it will never stop, …The only way it can stop is if, frankly, a price is paid.”

For this nation to survive there is no choice as to whether we mercilessly convict all concerned parties and seek impeachment proceedings. But with everything coming out at once and the way the media is handling it are we being setup? I can only hope and pray that the lies and tyranny has grown so great that politics as usual have come to an end, and we will return to this nations founding principles.

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

Death in Milwaukee

No, the tea party is not on the decline as recent news stories have suggested. I am sorry for creating that impression by my lack of posts recently.

Just over a week ago here in Milwaukee three individuals were shot and killed by the Milwaukee Police Department. Two of the deaths are of particular note. In both cases the men were wielding knives.

The first man was off his medication. He was threatening others and himself. He had cut himself, including his wrists. He died in a literal hail of gunfire that lasted several seconds according to a cell phone video of the incident. Several police officers were there and he advanced on them.

The other was a man making serious threats against his family with two cleavers. According to the man’s father he had even cut the coat the father was wearing, from what I understood from the news interview. The man went out to talk to the police against his father’s advice, still holding the two cleavers. The police say he advanced on them. The father says he was standing in place. They shot him dead.

Both serious situations for the responding officers. Local news coverage covered the training officers receive and how fast distances can be closed. The officers need to make quick decisions to defend themselves.

A bullet does not necessarily mean an assailant will be stopped. Though when Tasers were introduce the media covered them as well. They instantly drop a potential offender. The muscles lock up. Especially in the first shooting I described why wasn’t a Taser used as soon as the police arrived on the scene? The man had cut his own wrists. Haven’t we all seen you/tube or news coverage of police officers simply dropping a suspect with a Taser even when the suspect didn’t appear to be doing anything dangerous at the moment?In both cases the individuals were holding knives, not guns. In both situations more than one officer was on the scene. Could not one risk using the single shot Taser that would drop a man instantly?

I made a comment on our neighborhood site that my cousin-in-law, a police officer, had told me police policy was to shoot coyotes but by the time they get there long guns out the coyotes are already gone. This policy was told to me some ten years earlier. Another neighbor said the police chief said they were not animal control and he was indignant, stating his officers are too busy to shoot coyotes. OK, policies change (the point of this post if you are wondering) but certainly coyotes running around the city are a public safety issue. Then I made a more powerful point in response.

‘They sure are not shy about shooting peoples dogs’; was my own indignant response. I had heard several second hand accounts of people’s dogs being unduly shot by police officers. I heard first hand two accounts of people I know who’s dog were shot and killed. Both dogs were not vicious though one was a pit bull. They simply had escaped. I clearly recall a news report some years back where a couple accused the police of killing their dog. They said it was under control at their side when it was shot. I recently saw a news report of a standoff situation where the suspect was taken from his home and arrested. So prominent in the coverage was the suspect’s dog walking out into the crowd, tail between its leg, paying no attention to anyone, that the reporter had to mention that the police had to shoot the dog. They didn’t have to.

Are there litigation issues that Tasers have fallen out of use? Is it fiscally more responsible to use lethal force in the form of a firearm because there is a history recognized by the courts? Do we have just too many dogs that a policy of simply euthanizing them at any opportunity has become policy? Or is something more sinister afoot?

The Milwaukee police chief has been extremely critical of concealed carry and gun ownership in general. Comments in the past of what his officers would be instructed to do to law abiding gun owners if concealed carry passed (it did) could only be read as a threat. In the city of West Allis, especially when the concealed carry law was being formed, there were several cases of gun were confiscation brought to light. One man was open carrying while working in his yard. When guns are confiscated from law abiding citizens it is very difficult to get them back. In one recent case it took a man a year. In the West Allis case it came to light that the police often purposely damage confiscated guns making them unusable or permanently visually marred. These were guns of citizens in good standing. What is the goal of such policies?

This Winter the public became aware of some 2,000 armored vehicles being acquired by homeland security for domestic use. The idea shocked most Americans. Eventually while the government and Obama administration were being criticized the conclusion that dropped the issue from the minds of most was “Who could they ever get to man these vehicles?” With this, the idea that Obama could never inflict a police state even if he wanted to won the day.

The Obama administration and democrat politics in general are all about pitting one group against another whether by race, economic class, religion or the absence there of, whether one is a citizen or not, whether one is a man or a woman or some combination. I could go on. They manipulate the media, your children’s education and the moral and political foundations of the nation. They promote a faith like adherence to political correctness in our military. Is it a stretch to believe that policies would be put in place that would drive a wedge between the public and law enforcement? Policies that would create an us versus them atmosphere in our cities?

The idea on its face seems contradictory to common efforts made by local police departments to build relations with the public. This is conjecture based on observation and experience, but …who will man those armored vehicles?