*A path to impeachment* August 10, 2014 *Stephen Stone* <http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/stone>, RenewAmerica President
*[Updated Aug. 16, 2014]* In his well-reasoned book in support of the movement to impeach and remove Barack Obama titled*Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment <http://www.amazon.com/Faithless-Execution-Building-Political-Impeachment/dp/1594037760>,* Andrew McCarthy — a former federal prosecutor who got the "Blind Sheik" convicted in 1995 for the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center — argues basically two things: 1. Barack Obama deserves to be impeached and removed for his deliberate subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law, resulting in a multitude of threats to our national security, material strength, and moral stability; and 2. Impeachment of the dangerously lawless Mr. Obama should not be attempted until there is sufficient "public will" to do so — otherwise the attempt might fail to produce his conviction and removal. Here are a few excerpts from McCarthy’s book — - “There is no doubt in my mind that President Obama ought to be impeached and removed from office.” (p.21) - “I believe the president should be impeached because I am not confident the nation can withstand nearly three more years of his governance.” (p. 22) - “[Obama’s] failure to execute the laws faithfully is a high crime and misdemeanor. [His] systematic faithlessness in this regard imperils our system and our liberties. If the process of impeachment and removal is not seen as a viable option, we are effectively resigning ourselves to the loss of what has made our nation prosperous and free.” (p. 92, emphasis added) - “...[T]he Framers saw impeachment as the appropriate response to presidential corruption, lawlessness, and infidelity to the Constitution.” (p. 25) - “As a practical matter, impeachment is the only plausible congressional remedy to stop systematic presidential lawlessness.” (p. vi) - “The legal grounds — provable high crimes and misdemeanors — are vital to building a political case for impeachment, but the fundamental question is whether the president’s conduct is [seen as] so egregious that the public will support his removal.” (p. viii) - “Well, the [‘I’] word needs uttering. Absent a frank discussion of what impeachment is, what it’s for, when it should apply, and why it is necessary (that is, why other remedies are inadequate), we will never know whether political support for impeachment can materialize. (p. 44) - “Unless the point of the exercise is mere partisan foot stamping, it is not enough to have sufficient legal grounds for impeachment, even lots and lots of grounds. *Real* impeachment, removing the president from power, requires political support.... [It] requires moving public opinion.” (pp. 44-45) This sampling of his words underscores McCarthy’s main contention that the effort to impeach and remove Obama, no matter how justified or well-conceived, must be driven by sufficient political demand among the American people if it is to succeed. The rest of the book is devoted to laying out a detailed case for Obama’s impeachment and removal — in the form of fifty pages of carefully documented, ready-to-file Articles of Impeachment, followed by extensive notes. *The dilemma* If there is any flaw in McCarthy's presumption that the grassroots movement to impeach Obama must build sufficient public support *before* proceeding or it may fail in its ultimate purpose — conviction and removal — it is this: the *media elites,* who effectively control the public mind, will never permit conservatives to "move public opinion" in the fundamental way McCarthy appears to suggest is needed, and conservatives are left to devise a back-up plan. (Hence the modest "path to impeachment" that follows.) Indeed, the only reason public outcry for impeachment is less than compelling right now *is that the media have kept the American people in carefully managed ignorance of Obama's dangerous betrayal and deceit for more than five years.* That's *not* about to change. How, then, are conservative activists to rally the vast majority of citizens to the immense groundswell of indignation needed to ensure conviction and removal of this un-American demagogue? Our contention is that, yes, there must be *sufficient pre-existing support to justify proceeding* — but any likelihood of the overwhelming demand needed for conviction and removal will come *only as we proceed,* and will result from Congress's enormous investigative power granted by the Constitution in the case of impeachment. That investigative power, which Obama cannot substantially obstruct — as the articles of impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee in July 1974 against then-President Richard Nixon demonstrated, forcing his resignation — is inherent in the impeachment process, and is our only hope of overcoming the media's hold on the public mind and communicating directly to the American people about Obama. *There is really no other way but impeachment,* and failure to acknowledge this reality will guarantee the demise of our republic at the hands of the increasingly lawless Mr. Obama. Once impeachment begins and the *investigation succeeds in exposing Obama and his accomplices,*despite their attempts to hide from public scrutiny, we will witness a sea change in people's attitudes toward the usurper in the White House — a sweeping tsunami of public outrage that could well put such pressure on the Senate that removing Obama becomes the only "politically expedient" thing to do. So while professor McCarthy is fundamentally right about the need to build enough public support in advance to ensure a good outcome, *only as we actually plow ahead and utilize impeachment's investigative power effectively can we hope to generate the massive public outrage needed to force Congress to toss out the deceitful Mr. Obama.* That groundswell will never materialize while the media continue, largely unchecked, to hold most Americans in ignorance of Obama's crimes and misdemeanors, no matter how persuasive the voices of those trying to cut through the blockade. *We're closer than we think* If we concede that the business of drumming up public support for impeachment must of necessity focus on building public demand *for proceeding* (with the expectation that the support needed *for convicting* will naturally follow impeachment's public inquest <http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_65.html> into the treasonous schemes of the most dangerous president ever), *what tangible level of initial support are we talking about?* It goes without saying there's actually no way to know what's initially needed unless we push forward and see what comes of it, using our best efforts to press Congress to do its sworn duty; any other response — no matter how well reasoned — would be nothing but conjecture. The most we can truthfully say is that we will know we have enough public support to impeach when impeachment begins, and enough public support to convict when Obama is removed from office as a consequence of impeachment. Since all this is self-evident, we can count on the Obama White House and its protective media to redouble their efforts to keep the public in ignorance of the president's treasonable actions as the movement to impeach continues to grow by word of mouth and through grassroots activism on the Web. Low-information Americans attuned to the nightly news (rather than to Drudge <http://www.drudgereport.com/>, Breitbart <http://www.breitbart.com/>, and WND <http://www.wnd.com/>) can of course be expected to be unsupportive at the outset. Thankfully, not everyone is held captive by the media, and conservatives have a realistic shot at building and mobilizing *at least their considerable grassroots base* in the lead-up to impeachment. With these realities in mind, I believe a credible case can be made that *there is already enough public support to justify initiating impeachment,* and that *the prospect of actual removal is closer than many observers appear to think.* Here's why. *A look at recent polls* A careful look at midsummer polls reveals some interesting facts about the public's taste for impeaching the most lawless Chief Executive in our nation's history. Let's begin with a July 9-11 HuffPost/YouGov poll <http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/rwg8fxxkrw/tabs_OPI_impeachment_20140711.pdf> . On July 14, the Huffington Post ran the headline, "Two-Thirds Of Republicans Think Impeaching Obama Would Be Justified <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/obama-impeachment-poll_n_5584055.html>." The accompanying article, written by Emily Swanson, began, "Sarah Palin raised eyebrows last week when she called on Congress to impeach President Barack Obama <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/sarah-palin-impeach-obama_n_5567401.html>, but a new HuffPost/YouGov poll <https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/07/14/one-third-americans-want-impeach-obama/> shows that the former Alaska governor is not alone. A third of Americans, and two-thirds of Republicans, think Obama should be impeached." The actual number, according to the article, of Republicans who say Obama should be impeached is*68 percent.* The writer contrasts this significant figure with the 58 percent of Democrats who thought George W. Bush deserved impeachment back in 2007 (largely over disagreement with his policies). Not only is the GOP figure much greater, but it reflects more serious charges of deliberate treason, promotion of Islamic jihad and insurgency, utter disregard for the Constitution (and its balance of powers), and unprecedented lawlessness. In other words, the above facts and figures indicate something very significant, never mind predictable attempts by the media to downplay it. They show Republicans are fundamentally united in supporting Obama's impeachment for his exceptional lawlessness (with elites in their leadership, presumably, bucking the trend). Now consider these additional figures from the HuffPost poll: Not only do nearly 90 percent of Republicans think Obama has "exceeded the limits of authority placed on the president by the Constitution," but "52 percent of independents and 16 percent of Democrats said Obama had exceeded the limits of his authority." These numbers indicate that unusually high proportions of Americans from all political groups believe Obama is guilty of overstepping his prerogatives as president. *If enough evidence of wrongdoing by Obama* (something that grows every day) is added to the mix*,* the numbers could easily swell to a commanding surge in public opinion against the president. Would these trends be sufficient to force Obama out of office if he were impeached by the House? Let's take a closer look at the poll's findings. *The undecideds will decide* The HuffPost poll sheds important light on the one demographic that has yet to weigh in: undecideds. While 68 percent of Republicans favor impeachment, and 37 percent of Independents concur, *18 percent of Republicans and 26 percent of Independents said they weren't sure.* Among Democrats, 8 percent support impeachment, *and 15 percent said they weren't sure.* Those claiming they "weren't sure" are a sizable number, *fully 21 percent of the electorate,* according to the poll. Not only would such people likely be open to ever-mounting evidence of Obama's dangerous malfeasance, *but they would also not be inclined to oppose impeachment* (as indicated by their noncommittal response). In politics, these figures amount to a game-breaker. If a major proportion of the electorate want impeachment, and another large proportion don't oppose it, the result is much more powerful than just those who actively favor the cause. The "noncommittals" add implicitly to the real clout (and could potentially add even more strength once the evidence comes in) in gauging public support for impeachment. The numbers suggest a tsunami of support for impeachment is potentially in the works, especially considering what's at stake: our very future as a republic. As the evidence continues to mount — and it will — so will the pressure on Congress not just to *impeach,* but to *convict.* In the case of the recent HuffPost poll, if you add the 35 percent of Americans reported as favoring impeachment to the 21 percent who have no strong opposition to such action, you get a clear majority of *56 percent* who currently support, or are likely to support, impeachment and removal from the get-go. The likelihood that impeachment will decisively expose Obama's treason, treachery, fraud, lies, deceit, and destructive actions to millions of undecided Americans for the first time — through the investigation power the Constitution gives Congress in cases of impeachment — will all but ensure that undecideds quickly become believers, pitchforks in hand, in huge numbers. This spells trouble for Obama, and good fortune for ourselves and our posterity. *CNN's answer: a poll without undecideds* If undecideds will largely determine whether Obama is successfully impeached and removed from office, as described above, Obama-friendly pollsters might be inclined to suppress the clout of undecideds by giving poll respondents only two options — *for* or *against — *thus forcing them to say something other than what they really feel, effectively skewing the results. That's exactly what a recent CNN/ORC International poll <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/24/rel7e.pdf> did, and the findings dramatically differ from those of the July 9-11HuffPost/YouGov poll. Whereas the HuffPost poll gave respondents three choices — for, against, and not sure — the July 18-20 CNN poll gave only two, offering undecideds no real chance to express their true perspective. CNN then trumpeted the false headline "Majority say no to impeachment <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/25/cnnorc-poll-majority-say-no-to-impeachment-and-lawsuit/>." And what was the "majority" claimed by CNN's poll? *A whopping 65 percent.* By contrast, HuffPost's more accurate poll indicated no such majority. Using more fair methods, it reported *only 44 percent** thought impeachment would not be justified.* Predictably enough, the difference between the two numbers was precisely what HuffPost's poll showed was the number of *undecideds:* 21 percent. *CNN counted undecided Americans as opposing impeachment.* That's blatantly deceptive, of course. Consistent with its reputation, unfortunately, CNN passed off this propaganda as meaningful "news." We should note, in fairness to CNN, that its poll <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/24/rel7e.pdf> did allow a "no opinion" option, but that was not the same as the "not sure" option allowed by HuffPost, and drew virtually no takers among those polled. "Not sure" means knowing at least enough to have an opinion — while "no opinion" means, literally, knowing too little even to form an opinion. Very few people would describe themselves as *so ignorant they have no opinion about the conduct of the current president.* Hence only 1 percent opted to label themselves such in the CNN poll. The effect of this token third option was to steer respondents to take one side or the other in the impeachment controversy, with nothing in between, and rendered the poll meaningless and seriously misleading. Of course, that was arguably the poll's purpose: to produce seemingly plausible *disinformation* in the impeachment debate, to protect Obama. How subversive was the effect of this bogus poll? Well, the poll's false findings gave birth to the most outrageous claim yet by Obama defenders in the run-up to impeachment. Said DNC national press secretary Michael Czin in an email published by Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-impeach-obama-support-33-percent-109369.html> (which featured the poll July 25), As the CNN poll finds, *the majority of Americans support the President [in] taking action if Congress will not* and they oppose the GOP's sham lawsuit and talk of impeachment. (emphasis added) Blatantly flawed polling can have such a deluding effect on those who fail to look closely at the data. *A defective Fox News poll* In a strange twist, a July 20-22 Fox News poll <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/23/fox-news-poll-voters-say-putin-has-upper-hand-in-ukraine-obama-exceeded/> imitated the fraudulent CNN poll by similarly disallowing undecideds a "not sure" option. We would think Fox News would be more fair in its polling, but it emulated its longtime adversary by using a third option even less acceptable to undecideds than CNN's. Rather than allow "no opinion" — with its implication of ignorance — the Fox News poll's noncommittal option was "don't know," implying even greater ignorance. The only way a person could answer "don't know" (and thus have no opinion whatever) about Obama's possible impeachment would be to be living on another planet, if we can be facetious. Not surprisingly, only 3 percent — equivalent to the poll's margin of error — opted to self-identify as lost in space and time. And the predictable result of the Fox News poll? Essentially the same exaggerated, utterly false data as CNN's: "More than six voters in 10 oppose impeaching Obama...(61 percent <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/24/fox-news-poll-voters-say-obama-exceeded-authority-but-oppose-impeachment/> )." Like the CNN poll, the Fox News poll <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/23/fox-news-poll-voters-say-putin-has-upper-hand-in-ukraine-obama-exceeded/> included *undecideds* in counting those opposed to impeachment, advancing the illusion of massive public opposition to the Constitution's remedy to the lawless usurper Mr. Obama. We can safely discard any prevalent notion that the American people are generally opposed to impeachment. *We've been misled!* This opens wide the door to proceeding to impeach. *What we can expect to happen if Obama is impeached* If and when articles of impeachment against Obama are filed in the House of Representatives, his most devoted supporters can be expected to cry "racism," along with a lot of other distractions meant to divert attention from the extremely serious charges at hand — charges more serious than any other president confronted with impeachment has ever faced, and justly so, given the magnitude of his lawlessness. The reaction of Obama's defenders, egged on by the media, will likely be loud, irrational, and blown out of all reasonable proportion. At first. Once the proceedings begin and the truth about the first anti-American president emerges after initial attempts at obstruction by Obama fail, expect a far different response — first shock, then disbelief, then shame, then recrimination, then outrage, as large numbers of the electorate, incensed that they could be so deceitfully misled and defrauded, change from blind hero worshipers to angry franchise holders in this self-governing thing we call America. Only Obama's most radical fellow travelers will be inclined to stick with him to the end once his dangerous deceptions are laid out before the whole world. It's fair to say most Democrats didn't sign on to Obama's fraudulent promises for the purpose of destroying America. Most may be liberal, but they are not blatantly un-American <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/14/piscopo-confessions-of-a-disillusioned-democrat/>, and will not tolerate the kind of Marxist-Islamic remaking of America that Obama has pushed since Day One — *once they learn how deliberate and treasonable Obama's lies and deceptions have actually been.* They'll abandon him when they discover they've been used, abused, deceived, and harmed in ways never before seen in American politics. Obama's unparalleled, defiant lawlessness, in violation of the public trust, will do him in. That is, once it's fully known. Here's how conservative writer Cindy Simpson <http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/csimpson140719> describes the problem for Democrats — How would Democrats fare if forced to defend Obama on the highly visible stage of impeachment? Would the process — rather than letting them "off the hook" [as some suppose] — *instead put them in the hot seat alongside the same guy...they really, really "don't want to be seen <http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-visits-colorado-to-campaign-for-dems-who-dont-want-to-be-seen-with-him/> with?"* Democrats, forced to defend Obama's numerous impeachable offenses, would be placed in the uncomfortable position of *defending their own actions (or inaction) and their party's policies and methods — which would, by extension, also be on trial....* We're beginning to see a flash of worry and recognition on some of the media's faces.... (emphasis added) For non-partisan independents, Obama's impeachment will serve as a valuable civics lesson that will awaken them to the extremely partisan, elitist, godless sell-out of all things American by Obama. They won't tolerate it for a minute once the truth is known, and will turn from toleration of his regime to sweeping rejection of it. With Democrat friends and associates, they'll ensure the end of the Obama presidency. For conservatives, impeachment will validate their long-held perceptions of the treasonous occupant of the White House, and will offer them long-awaited relief that something is *finally* being done by their elected representatives to stop Obama's unchecked dismantling of the U.S. The mood of the country toward impeachment would shift from initial caution or resistance to relief the nightmare of Obama's insatiable overreach was at last being exposed and averted. *How?* How can we be sure of such a turnabout in public attitudes toward "The One" many thought they were waiting for? Quite simple. *It's built into the impeachment process itself by the Constitution.* It's inherent in the "investigative proceedings" that are the heart of that process, which the Constitution establishes in these words: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. (Art. 2, Sec. 4 <http://www.renewamerica.com/readings/constitution.htm>) The House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment. (Art. 1, Sec. 2 <http://www.renewamerica.com/readings/constitution.htm>) The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. (Art. 1, Sec. 3 <http://www.renewamerica.com/readings/constitution.htm>) For these words to have any meaning — that is, for Congress to have the "sole power of impeachment" as provided by the Constitution — a president cannot simply withhold vital evidence needed to investigate, impeach, convict, and remove him. (See here <http://essential-book.org/books/impeach/#sixteen> and here <http://www.libertylawsite.org/2012/07/12/the-constitution-and-executive-privilege/> .) Obviously, a president has some right to invoke "executive privilege," as the Supreme Court ruled in*United States v. Nixon* <http://watergate.info/1974/07/24/united-states-v-nixon.html>, but that right "must be balanced against the public interest in release of the material <http://essential-book.org/books/impeach/#sixteen>." In the case of Nixon, the House Judiciary Committee determined that Nixon's refusal to hand over evidence that was "necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives" *constituted an impeachable offense,* since he had done so "without lawful cause or excuse," to cover up his high crimes and misdemeanors in theWatergate scandal <http://watergate.info/chronology>. For a president to withhold information required by Congress to investigate impeachable offenses *is thus itself impeachable,* as Nixon learned to his great disappointment. After the House Judiciary Committee filed articles of impeachment <http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment> against him that focused on this offense — once it became clear he'd concealed evidence of his unlawful actions — Nixon abruptly resigned, rather than face certain conviction and removal. In regard to Obama — Recall what happened when the House of Representatives sought repeatedly to break through Attorney General Eric Holder's obstruction of its investigation into the Obama administration's "Fast and Furious" gunrunning scheme (which was apparently meant to usher in greater gun control nationally). Obama stepped in and invoked "executive privilege" to prevent Congress from having access to the facts and testimony it wanted. Should it turn out that Obama did so to prevent release of incriminating evidence, his obstruction would amount to an impeachable offence. Likely, that will prove to be the case once impeachment gets under way. *Once impeachment is initiated* against the president (or any of his associates), he is limited in his ability to stop it, to interfere with it, or to withhold information subpoenaed by Congress in the course of its related investigation. If impeachment is undertaken competently, it will guarantee the end of the Obama administration's stranglehold on the public's right to know who Obama is; what he actually believes and stands for; what his goals and plans really are; what he's been doing behind the scenes in Benghazi, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, and Libya, in the Fast and Furious controversy, in the growing border invasion, etc.; who his mentors and handlers are; why he detests America and wants to "transform it"; how he defrauded an entire nation with his deceitful Obamacare scheme; how he has violated one law after another, deliberately and treasonably, in pursuit of supreme power over our nation, in direct violation of the Constitution; and so on. Conducted well, impeachment will pull the curtain fully back and expose the charlatan behind it for the first time. The public outcry should be sufficient to pressure the Senate to convict and remove him. That's what we can expect of impeachment. But these fortuitous outcomes *will occur only in the course of impeachment itself.* The most valuable feature of the impeachment process, as Hamilton wrote, is its role as a "NATIONAL INQUEST <http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_65.html>." Only by impeachment — with its considerable power of investigation — can we fully come to know the truth previously obscured by the media about the man who presumes to be our dictator. That alone is worth every effort to get that far. After Obama is exposed, we can expect his tenure to end at the hands of incensed, deceived former supporters — not to mention those sworn to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." *A word about comparisons* Opponents of impeaching Obama typically draw parallels between the current push to impeach him and failed attempts to impeach and remove other sitting presidents, in an effort to downplay Obama's long list of openly-committed crimes, misdemeanors, and treasonable deeds for which there is no parallel in American history. Despite such diversions, the fact remains — in the words of WND's Joseph Farah — Obama is the "anti-president <http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/obama-the-anti-president/>," unique in his unmistakable scheme to take down America (a process Obama euphemistically calls "fundamentally transforming" it). The intent of irrelevant comparisons between Obama and other presidents confronted with impeachment (or its very real possibility) is to dismiss all serious criticism of his lawless treason as mere "policy disputes," or as bigoted rejection of him as a person, as though his deliberate, deceitful destruction of our republic were on a par with debate over Saddam Hussein's WMD's, or with chasing intern skirts in the 90's White House. To be valid, any comparison should center, instead, on Obama and Richard Nixon. Indeed, the very serious crimes and misdemeanors that Nixon resigned over, when faced with compelling charges of betrayal of the public trust during impeachment proceedings, can be applied to Obama *tenfold.* The charges <http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment> against Nixon concentrated on the following — each of which aptly describes Mr. Obama: - "Violating his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States." - "Violating his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." - "Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States." - "Preventing, obstructing, and impeding the administration of justice." - "Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States." - "Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses or potential witnesses." - "Personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoring to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner." - "Misusing federal agencies and executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations of private citizens for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office." - "Acting in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." The final — most emphatic — charge (mentioned earlier) focused on *obstruction of justice,* which will likely also be the focus of charges against Obama in his own impeachment, if he predictably attempts to hide from Congress: Failing, *without lawful cause or excuse,* to produce papers and other things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on several occasions, and willfully disobeying such subpoenas, *thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.* (emphasis added) (Articles of Impeachment <http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment> adopted by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974, edited for punctuation and brevity) The similarities here between Nixon and Obama are too great to ignore. Obama deserves impeachment for these very offenses, only on a greater scale that reveals an *ongoing pattern of unprecedented deception, deceit, and betrayal.* Whereas Nixon's crimes and misdemeanors were limited to cover-up of isolated instances of unlawful domestic spying, Obama's are evident in *his recurring unlawful actions and abuses of power that transcend what any predecessor has ever done.* If Obama doesn't deserve impeachment, no president ever will. He is the most lawless, subversive president in our history, and must be removed if our nation is to survive in God-ordained liberty. The seriousness, and unparalleled extent, of his lawbreaking changes everything in considering whether to impeach him, and when. *And what if Obama refuses to cooperate?* If Obama chooses not to cooperate — as Nixon chose — we are likely to see some striking parallels between the way Nixon's impeachment proceedings played out and the way Obama's undoubtedly will, over the same sorts of things. *Human nature* is what it is, especially for those with something to hide. We can expect Obama, like Nixon, to be tenacious, and deceitful, in fighting congressional subpoenas, especially in the face of initial judicial rulings that might cause him a few setbacks. He will fight hard, and long, to keep the truth from Congress, and from the American people, just as he's done in concealing numerous documents that would reveal who he really is and what his prior background would disclose. But just as with Nixon, someone in the Obama administration, or among his former associates, can be expected to come forth and drop a bombshell on the proceedings — opening a Pandora's box of damaging evidence that will cause Obama's lies to unravel like yarn. One good tug, and Mr. Obama will be looking not just at impeachment, but removal. That was the *de facto* effect, for Nixon, of a letter written by one of the Watergate burglars <http://watergate.info/1973/03/19/mccord-letter-to-judge-sirica.html> convicted early on, James W. McCord, which led to the fingering of Nixon's White House Counsel <http://watergate.info/chronology/1973-chronologyhttp:/watergate.info/chronology/1973-chronology>, John Dean, who in turn fingered Nixon, leading ultimately to congressional testimony by former presidential appointments secretary Alexander Butterfield that revealed the existence of White House audiotapes that proved Nixon's involvement in obstruction of justice — all despite Nixon's repeated efforts to conceal everything he could from investigators and from Congress from the outset. For Obama, the unraveling yarn could start with Benghazi (regarding which a handful of firsthand witnesses were earlier hushed by Obama), then move to the IRS scandal, the enabling of Iran's nuclear weapons program, the supplying of arms to Islamic jihadists in Libya and Syria, the deliberate weakening of our military and defense systems, the latest border fiasco, the Fast and Furious gunrunning scheme, the massive defrauding of America in the adoption of Obamacare, and so on. All these examples (and more) are suggestive of conspiracies, and those conspiracies are likely to come out upon impeachment-driven investigations — with someone, somewhere breaking the imposed silence. *Dozens of Nixon's associates went to prison over Watergate,* and many more than that are likely to do so among Obama's inner circle (including Vice President Biden). We can anticipate that one of these subordinates with extensive knowledge, and culpability, will step forth and negotiate a deal of immunity in exchange for blowing the top off of Obama's obstructions and lawlessness. No one wants to go to prison for "doing their job." The press of impeachment hearings will cause someone facing potential prison time as a result of their collusion with Obama to turn informant on America's biggest-ever political deception. *The international stage* Further ensuring that something is bound to go wrong with Obama's obstruction scheme during impeachment hearings is the fact that, unlike his predecessors, *Obama will be tried on the world stage.* If he's willing to gamble that he can fundamentally obstruct Congress, suffer impeachment as a result for unlawful obstruction, and then survive conviction and removal (as he no doubt thinks he can), *he will be gambling on the expectation that his accomplices in the U.S. media will be able, as always, to manipulate public opinion, and the disposition of Congress, in his favor.* The *world media* may not be so cooperative. The U.S. media will be but one of the many powerful communication systems with a vested interest in the proceedings. We can expect those nations with the greatest stake in the outcome — those most harmed by Obama's attempts to "reset" the world's leaders, politics, and cultures, as well as those who've come to distrust his arrogance and duplicity in international relations — to make sure (through leaks by high-level informants, perhaps) that he won't be let off easy, especially if he defies due process of law. America's friends in Europe, Israel, and elsewhere will be rooting for Obama's demise, and for America once again to take its place as the moral, political, economic, and military leader of the free world, upon which all of Western civilization precariously depends. They will help expose both Obama's deceptions and those of the U.S. media. The impeachment and trial process will likely produce such spectacular fireworks — with the entire civilized world watching via the WorldWideWeb and its pervasive social media, as well as friendly countries' media networks — *that the corrupt machinations of Mr. Obama will be opened wide for all decent people of the world to see firsthand, undiluted by Obama's media filter.* Another game-changer. It's not likely Obama will survive such a far-reaching *international inquest.* These and similar considerations will help ensure that Obama's impeachment succeeds at home, thoroughly exposing the man, with the possibility of conviction and removal, God willing. *For God to be willing...* If we really want to see impeachment result in Obama's removal, and thus see America have a real chance of surviving the destructive designs of the man in the White House, we need to go back to our biblical heritage, seek God's face, and submit to His will for us individually and as a people. (See 2 Chronicles 7:14 <http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/7-14.htm>.) Preserving our nation is as much a *spiritual* as a *political*undertaking, just as it was at the time of our founding. Like our forbears, we need to humble ourselves before God, repent of our personal and collective sins, and be worthy of His grace, Providence, and miraculous intervention. That — and do everything in our power, under our system of government, to apply the constitutional remedy of impeachment and removal to the dire situation urgently facing our republic. *A note about timing* Regarding timing*,* many who support impeaching Obama are waiting to see if the GOP takes control of the Senate Nov. 4 before they weigh in openly in support of impeachment. This way of looking at the matter is consistent with what Ambassador Alan Keyes has written <http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/keyes/130718>: we must elect an "impeachment Congress" this fall so we will have a better chance of removing Obama than we have right now. This practical consideration suggests at least two things: (1) the number of those who support impeaching Obama is likely much higher than current estimates, and (2) those running for election to House or Senate this season *are being counted on by the conservative base of the GOP* to honor their sworn oath to defend the Constitution against the likes of Obama if they are elected. As far as timing goes, the optimum timetable — considering how lawless Obama has increasingly become — would be for his impeachment to begin in the House immediately after the election *(if not sooner <http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/we-must-call-obamas-bluff-on-impeachment/>, given the urgency),* and for his trial to begin not long after a new Senate convenes in January 2015. *A final thought about Speaker Boehner and Vice President Biden* The first step Congress should take toward impeachment after the fall election is to fire Speaker John Boehner and replace him with a principled conservative <http://www.renewamerica.com/analysis/stone/140328>. Not only has the Speaker been a pivotal "Obama enabler" throughout his tenure, but he recently gave an unequivocal "No" to impeaching Obama: "We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/29/boehner-says-impeachment-talk-an-election-year-scam-ginned-up-by-the-white-house/> ." Congress should also name Vice President Biden as a co-conspirator in its case against Obama and impeach them both together, to truly clean house. These two steps are vital to saving our republic by means of the Constitution's carefully conceived process of impeachment and removal. Taking these steps would not only eliminate two absolutely unacceptable successors from the picture in the event impeachment leads to removing the president, but would pave the way for rebuilding our constitutional republic in the aftermath of the Obama/Biden/Boehner legacy. It's well past time to get things lined up and "ready to roll." *Stephen Stone is the President of RenewAmerica <http://www.renewamerica.com/> and co-sponsor of Pledge To Impeach <http://www.pledgetoimpeach.com/>* *(Feel free to distribute this article widely, with appropriate attribution.)* © Stephen Stone <http://www.pledgetoimpeach.com/> __._,_.___ ------------------------------ Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> ------------------------------ Visit Your Group <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaGNvczZzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MDg0NjAxOTE-> [image: Yahoo! Groups] <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYTRoM2R1BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQwODQ2MDE5MQ--> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> __,_._,___ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
