Obama: From ‘Embraceable You’ to ‘Impeachable You’?

June 15th, 2015
The 19th century British historian and moralist Lord Acton noted, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

In democracies, we see the telling sign of this tendency when elected officials exceed the limits of their authority. We see the telling sign of its acceptance when such acts go unchallenged by those responsible for doing so.

While guilty on several occasions of violating the Constitution’s “rules of the road” concerning presidential authority, Obama has yet to be charged with a single DUI—driving under the influence of absolute power. Some members of Congress have been vocal, but none have officially charged him. Even Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) voluntarily announced impeachment was off the table—further emboldening Obama to get drunk on the elixir of power.

That may soon change. At least one congressman has reached his breaking point, recognizing Obama’s abuses of power can no longer be ignored. This effort coincides with a retired senior military leader’s recent assessment “the greatest threat to our national security today” is Barack Obama!

Inaction by those responsible for challenging officials abusing power often is motivated by fear and intimidation. But such inaction only breeds further contempt for the rules by an abuser driven by a superhuman sense of invincibility. This was evident in Obama’s more recent State of the Union addresses in which he boasted if Congress failed to act on certain matters, he would—and he did. He has made it clear the law of the land is Obama’s law and not that of the people.

The kryptonite for any abuser of power lies in legally challenging his actions. President Richard Nixon learned this the hard way. President Bill Clinton experienced it to a lesser degree. But President Obama has yet to suffer the sting for violating a Constitution he swore to “preserve, protect and defend.”

It is questionable how this oath can be upheld by a U.S. president who believes, as Obama does, the future cannot belong to those who slander Islam—when the laws of that religious and political ideology are totally contrary to the rights given in the U.S. Constitution.

Obama was never qualified to run for office as president. Ironically, what got him the job is an issue that keeps him there today—race. Undoubtedly, Obama stimulated an “embraceable you” mindset in voters who saw him as a “feel good” candidate—i.e., his election would demonstrate America was truly a land of equal opportunity. That “embraceable you” mindset appears now to be giving way to “impeachable you.”

Once elected, Obama saw the need to keep a good thing going. He seized the opportunity to play the race card whenever possible.

In July 2009, Obama held his famous “beer summit” with white police officer Sgt. James Crowley and African-American Harvard professor Henry Gates. In responding to a call of an attempted burglary, Crowley arrested Gates—unaware Gates was trying to get into his own home. Race-baiters quickly raised their banner and Obama fueled the incident by accusing Crowley of “acting stupidly.” Never apologizing for the comment, he sought the summit as a “teachable moment”—although for whom is uncertain.

Five years later, Obama was still at it. When a white police officer shot an African-American suspect last year in Ferguson, Missouri, Obama again ratcheted up tensions. A subsequent investigation found the officer had acted properly.

Obama’s quick play of the race card laid the groundwork for those later questioning presidential actions outside his constitutional authority being tagged as racists.  Those concerned about constitutional transgressions were intimidated into inaction to stop him.

In what is described as the single most significant action towards impeachment to date, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla) is preparing a resolution to define “high crimes and misdemeanors”—thus establishing a standard against which Obama’s specific presidential authority abuses can then be measured.

The resolution notes as impeachable offenses “failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of non-enforcement.” And, targeting Obama’s intention to implement an Iranian nuclear deal with or without Senate approval, it includes “substituting executive agreements for treaties.” (If for no other reason, the thought of Obama implementing a deal which, by his own admission, ultimately gives the Iranians a nuclear weapon based on the future “hope” Tehran will change by then, cries out for Senate review.)

Yoho may also want to include within the definition of impeachable offenses “deception by endangering our national security interests while purportedly promoting them.”

Ironically, in one of the few times we can trust what Tehran tells us, we now know the framework nuclear agreement Obama advertised to the American public—as bad as it is—is conceivably worse as the Iranians have since made clear.  Apparently, with the March 31 deadline passing, Obama sought to lay out a deal framework for public consumption that was non-existent.

A leading expert on Iran, retired Colonel Yigal Carmon, was initially excited to hear a nuclear deal framework had been reached. He quickly discovered, however, the announcement reported a “fabricated success.” He added, “If this is not a premeditated collusion to deceive Congress and public opinion—I don’t know what would be.”

A recent article by retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons names Obama as the greatest threat to our national security. Whether due to ineptness or intention, Obama fails to distinguish friend from foe as he greatly diminishes our relations with the former while enhancing the influences of the latter.

Interestingly, Obama has taken the Oath of Office four times (two publicly and two privately)—more times than any other two-term president. One would assume, therefore, he knows exactly what he signed up to do. He has blatantly failed to “preserve, protect and defend” our Constitution and now needs to be held accountable.

Comments are closed.