Archive for Barack Obama

Come Out of the Shadows and Get Right With the Law

And pick up a check:

The illegals will get work-permits and Social Security cards, and will be required to pay taxes, according to Cecilia Munoz, the former immigration lobbyist who is now a top Obama aide.

That means they’re part of the tax system, she said, when she was asked if the illegals would get annual payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit program.

“They are subject to our tax law,” she said, carefully.

Carefully, so she didn’t burst into laughter.

[O]nce illegal immigrants are enrolled in the tax system, they’re would be entitled to EITC payments

The payments may be huge, and will rise each year.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997.

A family with two kids, and an income of $20,000, would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone.

Parents who earn less than the threshold would get $3,305 if they have one child, and $5,460 if they have two children.

The EITC program is already poorly monitored and may be subject to large amounts of fraud, according to critics.

Another study says that 47 percent of legal and illegal immigrants and their children are classified as living in poverty or in near-poverty…

Not anymore.

You can take the peasants out of Guatemala, but you can’t take the Guatemala out of the peasants. Even in the land of milk and honey, it’s rice and beans.

But that’s all changed. Like most things Obama has done, it’s just another voter registration drive. I was a loyal Democrat voter for 26 years. Where’s mine?

“Get right with the law.” He’s one to talk.

Comments

Playing Chicken vs. Being Chicken

The reason Vladimir Putin is eating Barack Obama’s lunch is because Putin behaves like a crazy-a**-motherfu**er. In such a stare-down, Obama doesn’t just blink, he flutters his eyelashes.

In the stare-down over amnesty for criminal aliens, however, Obama is Putin: he’s acting like George III on steroids.

And Republicans in Congress can’t look him in the eye:

The only way for Republicans to block the president’s planned amnesty-by-executive order is to withhold funding for its implementation.

Republicans have yet to devise an agreed strategy to withhold funding that wouldn’t be met by an Obama veto.

Such a veto would result in at least a partial government “shutdown.”

Even though (1) Republicans would continue to fund 99 percent of government, including all essential services and personnel, and (2) Obama’s veto would be the proximate cause of the “shutdown,” Conventional Beltway Wisdom is that Republicans would be blamed for the “shutdown.”

Media will hype stories of alleged catastrophes, disasters, and cataclysms purportedly caused by the “shutdown.”

Media will utterly ignore stories about the profound harm amnesty causes to American workers, American sovereignty, health and safety, the federal budget, and the rule of law.

Republicans know they’re wholly inept at explaining the simplest of facts to the American people and refuting media/Democrat spin.

Consequently, Conventional Beltway Wisdom holds that the “shutdown” will do extraordinary political damage to Republican election prospects for 2016.

Republicans tend to believe what they read in the Washington Post.

Republicans are, therefore, terrified of a “shutdown.”

Republicans are apparently oblivious to the fact that last year’s disastrous “shutdown” resulted in a Republican takeover of the Senate, the largest GOP majority in the House since WWII, control of two-thirds of state legislatures, and GOP governorships in super-blue Massachusetts, Maryland, and Illinois.

Republicans are similarly oblivious to the fact that Oregon voters rejected driver’s licenses for illegal aliens by a 2–1 margin.

Republicans are apparently unaware that Obama is more unpopular than at any point in his presidency and, post-Grubergate, has less credibility than Baghdad Bob.

I can’t blame Republicans for something they haven’t done. But if they end up having done nothing, Obama should throw them some table scraps because they will truly be his bitches.

Comments (2)

Out of the Shadows and Into the Welfare State

They like to be in America:

President Obama, following through on his vow to sidestep Congress, will announce in a prime-time TV speech Thursday the executive actions he will take to change U.S. immigration law.

Obama will make his announcement, expected to protect roughly 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation, from the White House at 8 p.m. EST, then go to Las Vegas to promote the plan Friday.

Obama loves Vegas. That’s where he was jetting off to when Ambassador Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods shuffled off this mortal coil. What better place to announce the death of a once-great nation?

Step out of the shadows, my undocumented friends, and into the (flash)light:

May 2014 — Humberto Gonzalez, an illegal alien, was convicted in New Jersey of criminal assault and sentenced to 50 years in prison. The rape occurred in 2005 and Gonzalez was not identified until a DNA match was made following an arrest in Texas for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Gonzalez also had a criminal record in Louisiana and Arkansas. (Times of Trenton, May 9, 2014)

February 2014 — Cinthya Garcia-Cisneros, an illegal alien from Mexico, was found guilty of two counts of a felony for failure to perform the duties of a driver and sentenced to three years of probation and 250 hours of community service. Garcia-Cisneros committed a hit-and-run that resulted in the death of two stepsisters, 6-year-old Anna Dieter-Eckerdt and 11-year-old Abigail Robinson. (Associated Press, Feb. 4, 2013)

January 2014 — Jasim Mohammed Hasin Ramadon, aka Jay Hendrix, an Iraqi immigrant, was found guilty in Colorado on multiple counts of sexual assault. He faces a possible sentence of life in prison. Sarmad Fadhi “Levi” Mohammed, another Iraqi was earlier convicted for the same assault and sentenced to 16 years in prison. An additional three Iraqi immigrants involved in the assault have received misdemeanor convictions. (Colorado Gazette, January 21, 2014)

January 2014 — Modesto Osco, a Peruvian, pled guilty to indecent assault on a minor. He was sentenced in Pennsylvania to five months to two years in prison. (The Morning Call, January 6, 2014)

Modesto of name, immodest of act.

I know many criminal aliens are hard-working and law-abiding…well, hard-working…well, working. They can’t all be rapists. (Bill Cosby didn’t leave much opportunity for others. Allegedly.)

I’ve already said my piece on the subject. This is an invalid act by a man without the authority to enforce it. But what happens next? Mitch? John?

Comments

We Can Quantify The Loss Of Personal Freedom Under Obama

Do you remember all those people who claimed that George W. Bush was taking away our personal freedoms? All those fiery dinner parties? Where are those folks now?

Americans’ assessments of their personal freedom have significantly declined under President Obama, according to a new study from the Legatum Institute in London, and the United States now ranks below 20 other countries on this measure.

The research shows that citizens of countries including France, Uruguay, and Costa Rica now feel that they enjoy more personal freedom than Americans.

As the Washington Examiner reported this morning, representatives of the Legatum Institute are in the U.S. this week to promote the sixth edition of their Prosperity Index. The index aims to measure aspects of prosperity that typical gross domestic product measurements don’t include, such as entrepreneurship and opportunity, education, and social capital.

The freedom scores are based on polling data from 2013 indicating citizens’ satisfaction with their nation’s handling of civil liberties, freedom of choice, tolerance of ethnic minorities, and tolerance of immigrants. Polling data were provided by Gallup World Poll Service. The index is notable for the way it measures how free people feel, unlike other freedom indices that measure freedom by comparing government policies.

“This is not a good report for Obama,” Legatum Institute spokeswoman Cristina Odone told the Washington Examiner.

In the 2010 report (which relied on data gathered in 2009), the U.S. was ranked ninth in personal freedom, but that ranking has since fallen to 21st, with several countries, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom passing the U.S.

The nation’s overall personal freedom score has declined by 17 percent since 2009, with a 22 percent drop in combined civil liberty and free choice contributing to that decline.

Of the eight categories in the index, personal freedom was America’s second lowest performance relative to other countries. The U.S. had its lowest ranking when it came to safety and security (a broad measure of how threatened citizens feel in instances such as walking late at night, or expressing their opinions) — ranking 31st out of 142 countries.

More at the link.

– Aggie

Comments

Interesting Midterm Demographic Stuff

Did the Republicans sweep merely because of midterm demographics?

Happily, no.

A congealing conventional wisdom surrounding the 2014 elections is that Democrats had a long night because of an unfavorable Senate map and because Democratic constituencies failed to show up. One storyline growing out of this is that once Democrats can enjoy a “presidential electorate” rather than a “midterm electorate,” their fortunes will turn, and Democrats will run well.

This isn’t entirely correct. The major factors driving the different results between 2012 and 2014 were not demographic. The major difference was that in 2012 Barack Obama was a moderately popular president. In 2014, he is an unpopular president. If this does not change between now and 2016, demographic shifts alone will not save the Democratic nominee.

He proceeds to become wonky, but it’s interesting. The gist of the approach is to compare the known differences in voter demographics between 2010 and 2012, and then apply to the differences between 2012 and 2014. I’ll give you a bit of the argument:

We can illustrate this best by borrowing a page from Harry Enten, and seeing what would have happened if the 2014 electorate had instead more closely resembled the 2012 electorate. That is to say, let’s keep whites voting 60-38 for Republicans, Hispanics voting 62-36 for Democrats, and so forth, as they all did in 2014, but alter their shares of the electorate to resemble 2012 (72 percent white, 10 percent Hispanic, and so forth) rather than 2014 (75 percent white, 8 percent Hispanic, and so forth). This allows us to isolate the effects of demographic change between 2012 and 2014.

The results are underwhelming: If the 2014 electorate had resembled the 2012 electorate in terms of race, the Republican vote share would shrink by just 1.97 percentage points. In other words, in a 2012 electorate, Republicans would have won the popular vote for the House by 4.5 points, rather than 6.5 points. That’s not nothing, as they say, but it still only explains a relatively small share of the difference between the 2012 and 2014 results. Put differently, if Obama had put up the same vote shares among racial groups in 2012 as Democrats ultimately did in 2014, he’d have lost.

Perhaps the difference is not so much differences in the racial makeup of the electorate, but rather differences in the age makeup of the electorate? The 2014 electorate was, in fact, quite a bit older than the 2012 electorate. This isn’t necessarily surprising, given that the elderly population is actually set to grow substantially in the next decade. Regardless, if we reduce the 65+ share of the electorate from 2014’s 22 percent to 2012’s 16 percent, increase the 18-24 year old share from 7 percent (2014) to 11 percent (2012), and adjust everything in between accordingly, the Republican advantage contracts by … 1.94 points.

Now you might look at this and say, “Well, that’s a total of four points!” The problem with this approach is that there is a substantial double count going on. Democrats do better among young voters in large part because that demographic is less white; younger whites don’t vote that differently from older whites. So this isn’t a cumulative exercise.

That last section is fascinating. Did you know this: The problem with this approach is that there is a substantial double count going on. Democrats do better among young voters in large part because that demographic is less white; younger whites don’t vote that differently from older whites.

Now, I thought that younger whites definitely voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. I did when I was young and virtually all of the young people that I know today do too. But apparently I exist in a liberal bubble, and this doesn’t generalize to the rest of the nation.

In any case, if Obama continues to suck, we have a hope for 2016. Let’s raise our coffee cups to that.

– Aggie

Comments

WANTED for Tax Fraud

Which one is it again?

Sharpton and his for-profit businesses owe more than $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens, according to The New York Times.

And his influential nonprofit group, National Action Network, the Times said, appears to be in a similar situation, saddled with years of unpaid travel and hotel expenses while apparently staying afloat by not paying federal payroll taxes for employees.

The newspaper also suggested that Sharpton is not paying enough or fast enough to reduce his obligation to the state of New York, a situation he sharply refuted Tuesday.

The 60-year-old civil rights leader told FoxNews.com that he has an agreement with the government to repay his personal and business-related taxes and that his payments are on time.

“We have a signed agreement,” he said. “And what is in the agreement has been kept. We’ve been up to date. This is the most bogus story in the world.”

Well, it is a Times story, so he’s got a point. But it takes bogus to know bogus:

The low point in his career likely came in the late 1980s when he accused a New York prosecutor of being part of a group of white men that abducted and raped teenager Tawana Brawley, an allegation that proved to be false.

The much slimmer and well-tailored Sharpton now has a show on MSNBC. He appeared on the streets of Ferguson, Mo., to appeal for justice and calm in the aftermath of a white police officer in August fatally shooting unarmed black teen Michael Brown.

More recently, Sharpton was at the White House when Obama announced that Loretta E. Lynch, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, who is black, would be his nominee to be the next U.S. attorney general.

He said that his rise to prominence has also increased his pay and that he is negotiating a deal with government officials to clear his debt by offering them 50 cents on the dollar.

“I’ll write a check tonight,” Sharpton said.

Who wouldn’t settle a debt for 50 cents on the dollar? Since when does the IRS negotiate with tax cheats? Start thinking interest and penalties, Reverend.

The Time also reported that Sharpton, a Democrat and former mayoral and Senate candidate, also had a history of delinquent rent payments to his friend, Bishop E. Bernard Jordan.

Sharpton asked why he would be responsible for back payments at the Jordan’s Brooklyn rental home in 2006 when he had separated two years earlier from his wife, who remained in the home while he lived in a Manhattan apartment.

“What is new is this story?” Sharpton asked.

That Sharpton has been a charlatan and a hoaxster for decades is perhaps not news. That he is to this day, and has traded on his conmanship to become advisor to the president of the United States is news. News fit to print.

Comments (4)

Sensational Headline Watch

I get it that the rest of you don’t share my fascination with the scandalous events down Mexico way. I didn’t care either until Obama tried to describe that dangerously lawless land as some sort of sun-soaked Swiss canton, and dismissed media reports of cartel killings and corruption as “sensational headlines”.

I said dangerous and I mean dangerous. Not just Mexico, but Obama too.

Can you believe this [bleep]?

What do the September disappearance of 43 university students from the custody of local police in the state of Guerrero, Mexico, and new allegations of federal corruption in the awarding of public infrastructure contracts have in common? Answer: They both show that Mexico still has a huge problem enforcing the rule of law.

Until now the president has been able to ignore Mexico’s legendary lawlessness. He has been riding an international wave of excitement around the opening of the energy sector, with few questions asked. But unless he wants to make common cause with the hard left—which thinks it has him on the ropes because of the missing students—he needs to admit his mistakes, purge his cabinet and make the rule of law job No. 1.

The rule of law? In Mexico? It would be easier to wrap my head around string theory than to comprehend such a reality.

To show that Mexico is committed to ending impunity and to improving public security, the president should use his influence to push for the full implementation of the new criminal code mandating that all federal and state judicial systems move, by 2016, to the oral accusatorial system, away from Mexico’s traditional written, inquisitional system.

Monterrey lawyer Ernesto Canales founded the civic group Renace (Spanish for “rebirth”) in 1994 to work for this reform in his home state of Nuevo León. In an interview in New York in the spring he told me that the change will “mean an increase in substance over formality in public trials and an increase in transparency. It will also raise the odds that judges actually know what’s going on in their courtrooms.”

Sounds important. Yet congressional approval of the federal regulations necessary to complete the reform is moving at a glacial pace, and the judiciary is in no hurry to comply. Many of the 32 states have yet to make the transition.

Everyone knows why: The oral system will challenge the traditional use of the criminal-justice system as a profit center for the state. In that tradition the accused can either pay or do time. Culpability is beside the point, and there is no need for competitive police salaries, forensics or transparent protocols to ensure accountability and communication among municipal, state and federal authorities.

Simply put, everything in Mexican justice (again with the incomprehensible concepts!) is available for purchase, from a speeding ticket to charges of multi-billion dollar international drug smuggling.

And all Obama saw fit to mention was Frida Kahlo and Octavio Paz.

Mexico may be dangerous, but is anything more dangerous than a “raging narcissist” (HT Pat Caddell) who believes anything he says, simply because he’s the one saying it?

Understand me: it’s not about Mexico; it’s about Obama. And it’s bad news.

Comments

Another American Beheaded

If you go to CNN, you can watch of video of an interview with him, working with wounded Arabs and explaining that he was put on this earth to do this.

It is very sad. But he would have been better off helping injured people just about anywhere else in the world.

Obama uses his Arabic name in this statement (he was born Peter Kassig):

Kassig had converted to Islam in a process that began before his captivity, his family has said. The trained emergency medical technician was captured while traveling in an ambulance to deliver medical supplies, they said.

“Abdul-Rahman was taken from us in an act of pure evil by a terrorist group that the world rightly associates with inhumanity,” Obama said, referring to Kassig by the name he adopted after converting to Islam. “Like [executed US journalists] Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff before him, his life and deeds stand in stark contrast to everything that ISIL represents.”

Obama praised Kassig for his humanitarian work and said he cared deeply about the plight of the Syria people.

Poor guy. Like a moth to the flame.

– Aggie

Comments

Simple Arithmetic

Byron York estimates how much Professor Gruber earned from ObamaCare

Remember when Nancy Pelosi declared that Obamacare was a jobs bill? “It’s about jobs,” Pelosi said in 2011, during a news conference to mark the first anniversary of passage of the Affordable Care Act. “Does it create jobs? Health insurance reform creates 4 million jobs.”

Like many other promises about Obamacare, that hasn’t worked out. But there is no doubt that Obamacare created a lot of work for at least one American — MIT professor Jonathan Gruber. Gruber’s frank admissions that he and others deceived the public about Obamacare have drawn a lot of attention in recent days. But the money that Gruber made from Obamacare raises yet another issue about his involvement in the project. Throughout 2009 and 2010, he energetically advocated a bill from which he stood to profit. And when it became law, the money rolled in.

You can read about it at the link. I added it up and it exceeds 1.3 million – roughly 400,000 from the Federal Government and the rest from the states. Four hundred thousand from Wisconsin (which opted out in the end), $329,000, about $121,000 from West Virginia and almost $92,000 from Vermont. The total exceeds 1.3, but it is impossible to know by how much, because Michigan let a contract from over 400,000 which was split between several entities, including Gruber.

I guess you could say that he did well by doing good. Or something.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

One Pledge We Hope He Breaks

He’s broken every other one:

President Barack Obama on Friday pledged a $3 billion U.S. contribution to an international fund to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change, putting the issue front and center of the G20 Leaders Summit in Australia.

The large size of the contribution took climate policy watchers by surprise and doubles what other countries had previously pledged ahead of a Nov. 20 deadline. It would be the second major move on climate change taken by Obama after big Democratic losses in last week’s midterm elections.

“Along with other nations that have pledged support, we’ll help vulnerable communities with early-warning systems, stronger defenses against storm surges, and climate-resilient infrastructure,” Obama said in remarks ahead of the official opening of the G20 summit.

“We’ll help farmers plant more durable crops. We’ll help developing economies reduce their carbon pollution and invest in clean energy.”

The timing of the announcement was seen as putting pressure Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is hosting the summit and once described climate science as “absolute crap”. Abbott had hoped the G20 summit would focus on growth and jobs.

Three billion dollars to keep poor countries poor. When they can do it themselves for free.

I suppose a conference of the 20 largest economies could focus on “growth and jobs”. But what fun is that? Who swoons over growth and jobs? Pledging $3,000,000,000 for “durable crops”—that’s what gets headlines.

Just please don’t cash the check.

Comments

Omertà

The code of silence among health care gangsters:

Speaking at the American Academy of Actuaries on Thursday, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius briefly addressed Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber’s controversial comments about how Obamacare got passed.

“You can talk to Dr. Gruber about what he said, but I don’t have a comment about his comments. Anything else,” she said.

Do all the president’s women take the Fifth? The cabinet secretary in charge of this pile of dog poo (Constitutional pile of dog poo) has nothing to say when Jonny “The Bull” Gruber sings like a canary? What does she think we are, stupid?

Better to think someone stupid than to be stupid:

At her weekly press briefing, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters she didn’t know who Jonathan Gruber was and “he didn’t help write” the Obamacare legislation.

However, at a 2009 press conference, Pelosi cited Gruber’s analysis.

Thusly:

Given Gruber’s prominence in the field of health care policymaking, it would be odd if Pelosi had never heard of him. Certainly her staff did — on Dec. 1, 2009, they issued a news release titled “Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster – ‘Health Reform And Insurance Premiums’ ” that cites Gruber by name seven times. (It’s no longer on Pelosi’s site but is archived here.)

Still, the fact that her aides knew about Gruber isn’t a smoking gun that she did. The smoking gun instead comes from video of a news conference she held on Nov. 5, 2009. During that news conference, she addressed differences between the bill she was backing and one offered by Republicans:

“I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even from now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.”

And then there’s this:

President Obama personally crafted a major Obamacare deception with Jonathan Gruber at one of Gruber’s numerous White House meetings, according to a 2012 Gruber interview with PBS.

“And Obama was like, ‘Well, you know’ — I mean, he is really a realistic guy. He is like, ‘Look, I can’t just do this.’ He said: ‘It is just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?’ And we talked about it. And he was just very interested in that topic,” Gruber continued.

“Once again, that ultimately became the genesis of what is called the Cadillac tax in the health-care bill, which I think is one of the most important and bravest parts of the health care law and doesn’t get nearly enough credit,” Gruber added.

Pelosi, Sebelius, Gruber, Obama…do you get the feeling that they’re trying to keep things from us?

Ditto Lois Lerner and that worm, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen?

And Eric Holder? And Susan Rice? And Hillary Clinton and John Kerry? Are they not all proven liars?

Are we not in some bizarre-o-world Nixon White House where the liars, creeps, and villains are not charged with crimes, but rather hailed as heroes?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and most definitely yes.

Comments

Ripe for Impeachment

I’m not saying it’ll happen: impeachment is more a political act than a legal one.

But Andy McCarthy makes the case:

I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.

By calling on Congress to pass a bill to his liking, Obama has admitted he doesn’t have the authority to do this on his own. He has said exactly that several times over the years, as captured in a video we posted yesterday. By issuing this fiat, therefore, he will exceed his authority—by his own admission and reasoning. Either the proposed amnesty will have no validity; or, if he attempts to enforce it, he will be violating the Constitution. Again, he says so.

That may seem like a political impossibility—I am far from prepared to issue one of my Thirstradamus predictions—but it may become more possible over time:

Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do this in reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.

Alas, that constitutional parry has already been disavowed by GOP congressional leadership.

Against this backdrop, I am gratified that Fox News’s Megyn Kelly and Charles Krauthammer have just given the topic of impeachment in the immigration context more of the serious consideration it deserves. Appearing on The Kelly File Thursday, Dr. Krauthammer asserted that the president’s anticipated amnesty decree for millions of illegal aliens “is an impeachable offense.”

He is plainly correct. As Faithless Execution elaborates, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitution’s trigger for impeachment, is a term of art for abuses of power that violate the president’s fiduciary obligations to the American people he serves, the constitutional system he takes an oath to preserve, and the laws whose faithful execution is his core duty. High crimes and misdemeanors are not — or at least, not necessarily — the same as “crimes” and “misdemeanors” prosecutable in the courts. Impeachment is a political remedy (i.e., the removal of political authority), not a legal one (i.e., the removal of liberty after criminal indictment and conviction).

A sweeping amnesty for millions of unrepentant lawbreakers that punishes American workers, imposes crushing burdens on the states, and betrays law-abiding aliens who comply with our immigration rules is not an indictable offense. Yet it is obviously an impeachable one. So is the failure to enforce the immigration laws. And the effort to award by executive decree benefits that only Congress has the power to grant is patently lawless and thus just as clearly impeachable.

Exactly. And, not to be tiresome, but Obama, the ex-Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law, has said so himself, repeatedly.

The argument goes on, but let me peel off here to discuss the politics. Impeachment requires a majority vote in the House, one I believe would pass easily. The case then is handed over to the Senate for “trial”. To convict, two-thirds (67) of the Senators need to vote in favor. When the new Congress is seated, there will be 54 Republicans, all of whom (let’s say) will vote for impeachment. Can they convince 13 Democrats to go against the party (and the country) to join them? Almost certainly not.

Obama’s proposed decree is politically unpopular, as is he, and a few Dems will vote to impeach. But not enough. As McCarthy says, impeachment is a political act more than a legal one. And there are more than enough political hacks among the Democrats in the Senate to spare The Nation’s First African American President™ from the humiliation of impeachment.

So, is it worth it to proceed? Democrat pollster Pat Caddell described Obama as a “raging narcissist”. Such people do not slink away with their tails between their legs. He’s not bluffing. He doesn’t have to: he can do the math as well as I can (both of us having gone to the same university). I’m not sure I see the point in pursuing a strategy that has almost no chance of success at the end, will leave the offending act unchanged, and may be political overkill.

And I’d vote to impeach him faster than you can say “undocumented citizens”.

But I wonder if wielding the power of the purse might not be a better option, even if it does lead to a shutdown. The GOP feels it took the brunt of criticism for the last “shutdown” (slowdown, barely), yet it just won an historic election. Unlike impeachment, cutting off funds is, as this administration likes to say, a “time-limited, scope-limited” action. A specific remedy to an unpopular act.

I’d also take my chances in the Supreme Court, however this issue might come before them. Even there, the issue would be as much political as it would be legal. But I think a majority of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy would rule that the Constitution is not the president’s napkin at a barbecue joint, to be soiled, wadded up, and thrown away whenever it suited him. On that, I would give my Thirstradamus guarantee.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »