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.

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?

Taylor Swift and the Decline of the United States

My wife and I watched Taylor Swift’s music video “22” the other night. We met when we were 22. As I listened I became terribly disturbed, perhaps indignant is a better term, by the lyrics.

“We’re happy free confused and lonely at the same time, It’s miserable and magical oh yeah.”

Well Ms. Swift, you are far from happy let alone free if you are confused, lonely and miserable.

Civilization itself grew from addressing this very contradiction in man. The realization that a true happiness based on the spirit, beyond the temporary thrill one experiences from physical stimulation, could not be found in man’s fallen state turned man’s hearts toward a higher being and purpose codified in religion in the pursuit of an eternal lasting happiness. From religion arose morals and values through which man could create a more harmonious society capable of striving for greater and greater prosperity, happiness and upon that freedom to pursue one’s dreams.

Being a slave to sin, the pleasures of the flesh, has doomed man to a menial existence where one is always chained to seeking that next thrill to cover the emptiness in one’s heart. It is the same as a drug addict who lives from one fix to the next. Or as Taylor Swift would put it:

“Everything will be alright if you keep me next to you, You don’t know me, but I bet you want to, Everything will be alright, if we just keep dancing like we are 22…”

I have suffered my own tragedies and short comings in my life; some call it High School. Stress and confusion were, are commonplace for many in their youth. So I, like you my reader understand the relief and joy one can experience in a highly stimulative interaction with friends or family, how the strenuous physical exertion in sports can free one from all worries or how any other physical gratification can temporarily make one experience a certain level of temporary joy or happiness. Especially in one’s youth ones body is highly tuned to the wonders of this physical world and driven to interact. It is natural. It is how God created us to be, but it does not equate in whole to the happiness that mankind throughout history has determined we were created to experience. It does not free us from crime and sin, whether one is the victim or perpetrator.

The freedom mankind has sought throughout the ages is integral with responsibility. The enlightened founders of this nation recognized the laws of God and nature (or God’s design) and understood that they embody certain perimeters man must conform to. In this God’s blessings flow and mankind is prosperous and free; man attains dominion. Without dominion over the world around us we become reactive beings rather than the subjective beings “GOD” created us to be, capable of free thought and action to comprehend and dominate all of creation.

When we talk about civilization rising out ever increasing morals and values we can look to the most basic framework of societal foundations; the Ten Commandments. Depictions of the Ten Commandments are commonplace on most court houses, at least the older ones.

In the Ten Commandments we have respect for God and His ways, respect for ones parents and the institution of husband and wife, and general directions to do no harm to others. It implies that we are part of something greater and that the unseen is more important than what is seen.

Taylor Swift is an amazing individual who has accomplished incredible things from a very young age. The vapid nature of the song “22'” is a disappointment. Perhaps her parents are wiser and have a greater level of understanding in their later years than their daughter. Unfortunately we live in an era where God has been replaced by a supposed incorruptible virtue of children. And when you have a child of such caliber how could one say anything in opposition? But sometimes that is the role of the parent; grasping a teachable moment.

The United States however has become a society where there is no compulsion or sense of commitment to recognize any responsibility to honored age old institutions or the concept of a greater good. Our society has become all about the self.

“Everything will be alright, if we just keep dancing like we are 22…”

The Catholic Church and the Case for an American Pope

The Pope has resigned. Some may question whether he was forced to resign. The lightning strike of the Vatican shortly after the announcement made people stop and think. Then there is the association being with the last Popes that resigned 600 years ago, yet those Popes (at one point three different Popes claimed legitimacy at the same time) were deposed. Perhaps de-Poped would be a better term. It was not too far afterward that the reformation, a response to a corrupt religious hierarchy, brought reform to Christianity and forced reform in the Catholic Church.

Could the latest Pope have been force to resign? I don’t believe that likely. Could there have been looming and newly manifesting issues that the Pope felt he was not best suited to deal with at his age or that his opinions on stood in contradiction with other forces in the church? That is far more likely though the official line that the Pope is simply getting too old for the burdens of the position has not been competently contested.

The only previous Pope who ever legitimately resigned was Celestine V in 1294. He was imprisoned shortly afterward by the new Pope Boniface VIII. This illustrates an ever looming flaw with the Catholic Church; absolute authority. The flaw can also be a strength if that absolute authority is truly united with God’s will, at least the will for his time.

Pope John-Paul II was an example of one that led in this world and was a powerful force in the liberation of those imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain. Pope  Benedict XVI was left with the task of dealing with pedophiles in the church. We could simply call them homosexuals but that would be a misrepresentation. The root of this problem, and most all historical problems in the Church, can be linked to absolute authority, including the holier than thou aura placed upon the Priesthood. How the church has handled this crisis is yet to be judged.

The conservative orthodox message of the church may appear to be in contradiction to the dark realities found in America, Ireland and other places around the world, but the conservative orthodox message is the Church’s position and its strength. It is where conservative views and orthodoxy reign that the Catholic church has grown and been most vibrant. These same views are held by the leading Cardinals in the United States.

Some have claimed that there is no hope that an American could be elected Pope. The logic is that a Pope from a superpower would be too much influence for a single nation. This logic does not stand under current circumstances.

The Catholic Church stands in stark opposition to the pop culture the United States embodies and propagates throughout the world. Abortion and now the homosexual agenda are just some of the false ideals that have become part of United States diplomacy. What better spokesman to confront worldwide depravity being endorsed by the most influential nation in the world than someone from that very same nation speaking the very same language representing and empowering the good and upright citizens thereof?

Even the former greatest threat to the world, the communist block, held its people to moral standards. They claimed moral superiority in the traditional sense. They supported family. They sowed the seeds of immorality here to destroy our society in the quest for world dominion. It is the Russian Republic, formerly the Soviet Union, that is the only free nation taking a stand against the homosexual agenda. Ironically as their strategy to destroy the United States and turn it into a communist state come to fruition, the fruits of their tactics threaten to plunge the whole world into social and economic collapse, including the Russian Republic.

Despite the Church’s flaws they have not allowed those flaws to influence the true message. Where John-Paul II brought down atheistic communism starting with his own native land of Poland can a Pope from the United States bring an end to the mainstreaming of immorality in the world? Someone has to.

Africa is also very important to the Catholic Church and to the world. Human rights abuses are rampant on one hand and on the other good people are being besieged with the immorality of the Western World. Strong direct leadership on a continental scale is required. A native speaker of English, the International language, may hold some bond of familiarity with the people. French, the old International language, being widely spoken throughout Africa would be an argument for a French speaking Pope.

The world is entrapped in moral confusion. The simplest concepts of integrity and honesty are absent in our politics and secular culture. It will take far more than the Pope to turn this world around. It will take nothing short of a worldwide Christian revival. John-Paul II was far from solely responsible for the fall of communism but he was an integral, perhaps indispensible part. Where will the next Pope take the Church and what will he bring to the world?

Reverent

Reverent - feeling or showing deep and solemn respect

Generally reverent, or reverence is restricted to God or some representation thereof, or to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of ideals we value to a similar degree; expressions of the divine or greatest good.

At least that is the implied definition that I was raised under when I was a child, and part of my childhood included being a member of the Boy Scouts. Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.

Attributes of the Boy Scouts considered valuable in making young men good and productive members of society. Important attributes; at least attributes that our society formed from the Christian tradition have considered important. Attributes best taught in disciplines and an environment that are free from sexual diversions. Now president Obama is encouraging the Boy Scouts to condone homosexuality as a right as part of what the Boy Scouts represent.

What is missing as we fight to regain the founding values and principles of this Christian nation? A recognition of what our society stands for and even more importantly how this society and at what cost was it established.

Now to set the tone of my piece; If one condones homosexuality, does not consider it a sin, a perversion, and if one allows the homosexual culture and agenda relevance in our society one, perhaps you, do not really believe in God.

This is an unnatural act that is clearly defined as a sin or perversion of the natural order in all religious traditions. And the advancement of all societies into civil, orderly and good societies are founded on these religions, and the ideals and laws codified therefrom.

In the Judea-Christian tradition in particular, it is the very sin of the angels that rebelled against God (Jude 6-7) Hence those Christian denominations that have embraced homosexuality do not truly believe in God. God is a concept to them at best. They bow to man, the fallen man and the father of fallen man, the devil, and their will is to do there father’s (the devil) desire. (John 8:44, Matt. 23:33…, Matt. 3:7) As Jesus said in Revelation to the Church of Sardis “You have the name of being alive but you are dead.”

How was this pinnacle of Judeo-Christian faith, the United States, a nation that has brought blessing and liberty to much of the world, established on this earth? It was established over generations upon generations of saints and martyrs who were tortured and murdered for their faith and the words that embodied that faith. They denied the flesh and set standards of discipline so the greater society could be liberated from base sexual desires which all understood Satan works through. They built a foundation upon which we could enjoy a good prosperous society, living as upright families as God intended. We hold these people in reverence, or we used to. How few among us, who enjoy the fruits of all those previous sacrifices, are willing, brave enough to speak out against this abomination of homosexuality and the moral decay of this nation?

As conservatives like myself fight to win back this nation, represented in many ways by talk radio and institutions of conservative values like The Heritage Foundation, none shy away from the fight against corruption, lies, the socialist/communist agenda in government and our schools, divorce and the break down of the family, or even abortion. But when it comes to homosexuality the conservative cause avoids the subject at best.

It is like the common caricature of the man with the devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. Who will he listen to? Arguments are presented by the forces of evil and good and the man must judge which course of action is most beneficial to him. At some point after responding in the positive to one side several times in a row, the representative of the other side vanishes in a puff of smoke. In regards to homosexuality far too many of the spokespeople in religion politics and among those promoting the conservative cause have feared opposing the homosexual agenda and have accepted faulty premises to the point where their conscience, that small voice of God, has been defeated in this regard.

God created the act of love as a beautiful union which bears fruits of love beyond what any single individual consumed in the pursuit of self serving desire can ever imagine. Marriage between a man and a women encompasses the wonders of His love on every level all embodied in the traditional family.

Homosexuality is unnatural, perverse and serves only one purpose, self gratification. One takes this precious tool through which God empowers one to create life and sticks it up another’s butt hole. Oh crap! And then I have heard some talk of a train. I have come to some idea about what they means from the television, the same television your children watch.

Homosexual is not the way God made them. Homosexual parenting is not the same as a traditional family; it is detrimental. Studies that suggest otherwise claim the differences inconsequential not that there are not differences, though not all agree the the differences are inconsequential. And you know if they could have gotten away with claiming there were no differences they would have done so…

Homosexuality is far more of a choice than anyone wants to admit. Or perhaps a persuasion, as Eve was persuaded by the serpent who questioned the word of God; vilifying God’s intentions. Where’s the science to suggest that it is not a choice? It was being pursued, yet no one even asks what came of it. If homosexuality could truly be traced to genetics, epigenetics, hormones or some psychological cause it could be overcome; treated. What other causes could there be? …The choice to alter ones persona to fit the latest fad? Why does not anyone even ask anymore? But we all know the science of manmade global warming has been settled.

In our local talk show market here in Milwaukee I have not heard anyone take a stance against homosexuality. (the ones I hear the most are all single) Rather I have heard comments of acceptance. These local talk stars, like their national counterparts, associate the lies and misdeeds by Bill Clinton as President and others as the source of the profusion of lying, even under oath, and other deviant acts in society. How is it that the acceptance of homosexuality by them does not equate to similar negative consequences for our society?

Yes, some will boldly claim that they believe God created this world in six days. Then they will exalt themselves by testifying to the negative e-mails they will receive on the subject, as if that makes them special. I guess speaking out against the abomination of homosexuality and the reaction it would produce doesn’t make you feel special enough.

To all those talk show hosts and others, any who have accepted homosexuality as a reality, is it that you don’t believe in God, are spiritual morons or are you all just plain cowards. Oh! Have I offended some of you. Perhaps you have friends and acquaintances that are gay and know them to be good people. “How could I force my values on them?” you ask yourself. Well, if you believe in God which I question, if your friend doesn’t repent he’s going to rot in hell. What kind of friend are you?

The Christian culture has brought man to the point where we value every human life, including the unborn. People are no longer stoned and burned at the stake for their sins, or alleged sins, any longer in the Christian sphere. But that does not change the nature of good and evil. It does not mean that we can surrender to sin in some delusional vision of our own goodness as if it does not matter any longer. It is God and His ways we need to hold reverent, not the ways of man. …“What difference does it make?!” cannot be the new motto for the United States.

Neither does hypocrisy negate the truths of right and wrong. This scourge on our society all began with the sexual revolution. The baby boomer generation turned against the values and ideals of those who came before. They justified their deeds in many ways by pointing to the hypocrisy of the standard bearers; the propagators of traditional values. They engaged in free sex that divulged in lusts far beyond the weaknesses of their parents generation. They called those fighting for the freedom of peoples around the world murderers so they would not have to serve themselves. The result of their protests ultimately cost millions of lives and enslaved millions more. Now they call our brave men and women torturers. But that will all change when homosexuals, transgender and every other orientation the mind can imagine are accommodated for in the military, and we put women on the front line. Well, …at least we will have a military that wont think twice about taking our guns away.

Our society is in moral confusion. With the sexualization of our youth, the promotion of abortion, the acceptance of sex outside of marriage as the standard, the support of single parenthood, the acceptance of divorce, the destruction of the traditional family under the homosexual agenda and who among us can claim to be blameless. But bestowing acceptance upon what appears to be the greater sinner does not make ones own sin any less severe.

I do not advocate invading peoples bedrooms or forcing one’s values on another. The right of association is guaranteed in our nation and we cannot stop groups from their freedom of expression within reason. That does not mean we are required to legitimize their cause.

Homosexual marriage should be outlawed. Homosexuals, as well as single people in most cases, should not be allowed to adopt children. We should not have homosexual literature in our schools. Sexuality has no place in elementary schools and abstinence should be taught in middle and high school. Are we to allow our children to be indoctrinated in a minority view that the majority considers sinful and deviant? Are we to standby and do nothing while the values of this nation are being destroyed?

Is it right to outlaw homosexuality? I believe most everywhere in the United States the acts are already outlawed. Four States including Virginia and Florida have laws against co-habitation of men and women outside of marriage. Why are they looking to change the law? We have lost an understanding of how important values are to maintaining a society. We no longer hold God reverent.

I wrote in my last piece about the human rights violations of the Russian Republic. Now they are proposing laws to ban the teaching of homosexuality in schools and public demonstrations in support of gay rights. I say, “God Bless the Russian Republic!”