A few weeks ago I wrote an article called “Sieve.”  It was about how a word can grow and grow in volume until it became impossible to ignore.   Newt Gingrich used the word impeachment with regard to Obama’s decision to declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.  Obama not only disregarded the will of congress in making that decision, but he also took upon himself sole authority with regard to what is and what is not constitutional.  We don’t need a Supreme Court when we have Obama.  I did not expect Gingrich to start proposing the impeachment of Obama, but the word had been mentioned, and it had been mentioned by someone too prominent to ignore.

Now the word has been used again, only this time from members of both parties and with considerably more emphasis.  Dennis Kucinich, possibly for the first time in his life, is starting to sound coherent.  He pointed out that the issue was not whether or not Obama was doing the right thing, but rather whether what he did was constitutional.  Several key legislators in both parties have echoed this opinion.    Kucinich has unusual support for his opinion.  He referred to a quote from Barrack Obama in 2007:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation which does not involve stopping an actual or imminent attack on the nation.”

Did anyone hear Obama mention an actual or imminent attack on the nation?  I didn’t think so.  Since he dithered over this decision for more than a month, it is hard to argue that this was an unforeseeable emergency.

Perhaps Congressman Tom Rooney said it best:

http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3182:rooney-president-must-seek-congressional–not-un–approval-before-taking-further-action-in-libya&catid=48:2011-press-releases

“The President sought approval from the United Nations and the Arab League before taking any action in Libya, but he never consulted the United State Congress,” Rooney said.  “That sets a terrible precedent.  By seeking only U.N. approval, the President is transferring authority that should rest in the people of the United States through their Congress to an international community.

Virtually every President has taken a position that the War Power Act is unconstitutional.  But, they have also gone to great lengths to avoid a constitutional crisis over the issue.  For example, Bush took the position that he did not need congressional approval to invade Iraq, but he got that approval anyway.  At a minimum, this puts a President in a position where he can argue that, in his opinion, he believed he did have the authority.  Even if the courts ultimately find that the War Powers Act is constitutional, the President can argue that he acted in good faith.  But Obama has a much harder time making that argument because he is on record saying that he KNOWS that what he did is unconstitutional.  What’s his defense?  That he didn’t really understand the constitution after all?

This does not mean that I am predicting impeachment proceedings any time soon.  But it does mean that Obama is as isolated as a President can be.  He is rapidly losing support from both parties.  Perhaps our military will score a quick and decisive victory in Libya, Gadhafi will be removed from power and peace and love will prevail.  That would be great for everyone.   If that happens, Obama will come out smelling like a rose. 

However, the odds of this turning out much worse than expected is much higher than of it turning out better than expected.   Today we shot up a bunch of “friendly” civilians trying to help our downed pilots.  Nice!

Obama was thrilled to have the support of the Arab League.  Except that the Arab League is back tracking on their support big time. 

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/first-cracks-emerge-in-military-coalition-on-libya-20110322-1c42z.html

To top it off, Obama is promising to transfer the command from the U.S to someone else at the first opportunity.  Rumors are that this will be a French admiral.  Brilliant!  Perhaps Obama is unaware that it was the French who led the world into World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War.  In every case the French got slaughtered and the United States had to ride in on a rescue mission.  In every case the French originally demanded that our troops report to a French commander.  Fortunately, for our troops, neither Woodrow Wilson nor FDR were that stupid.   In Vietnam, the French were already gone before we got involved.  Only in Korea did we manage to get into a messy war without French help. 

Just remember this:  in 18 months we will have elected the next President of the United States.  Odds are really high that won’t be Barack Obama.  If things continue to deteriorate he may have difficulty getting the Democratic nomination.  Contrary to her public statements, a lot of experts are claiming that Hillary Clinton is seriously considering a run at the White House.  In her public statement on Libya, which was far more impressive than Obama’s, she referred to Sarkozy and Cameron as her “colleagues.”  Remarkable language for a Secretary of State to use with regard to the President of France and the Prime Minister of Great Britain.  

Obama’s performance has deteriorated to the point of embarrassment.  If recent news reports are any indication, his Libya adventure may be the most embarrassing U.S. foreign policy fiasco since the Bay of Pigs.  A lot of canaries are biting the dust.  Democrats would be wise to take seriously.  The way things are going Democrats may be more anxious to get rid of Obama than Republicans.   

TDM

Once again a Democratic President appears to be poised to get us involved in a politically correct war.  Obama has never hinted that our national security is at risk with regard to Libya.  Everyone agrees that Gadhafi is a bad actor and no one will miss him, but is he really a threat to us?  George Bush at least made the argument that Iraq under Saddam Hussein represented a significant threat to our national security.  Obama has not made that argument, just like Clinton failed to make that argument with regard to the military action in the Balkans.

This is a typical UN action.  No one is suggesting that Libya is a threat to anyone other than the people unfortunate enough to live there.  If the UN is going to respond whenever people are getting killed, they apparently have been asleep with regard to other garden spots like the Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia and Darfur.  This clearly isn’t just about preventing people from getting killed; the UN has seldom shown a backbone with regard to that topic.  It also isn’t just about getting rid of Gadhafi, although there is a certain appeal there.  The real question is:  Why?   Why Libya, Why now?  

The answer, at least with regard to Obama, is that he is far more concerned over how the international community views this than about the impact on our national security.  The real pressure is coming from Britain and France who are determined to deal with Gadhafi.  There is little political pressure coming from the U.S. for us to get involved.  That is one reason Obama was so slow to act.  He didn’t feel the urge.

What changed”  Did Gadhafi change?  No.  Is this the first we realized that he was killing people?  Please!  The only thing that has changed is that it looks like Gadhafi is going to win, and more importantly for Obama, the UN is upset.  If Obama had taken action immediately, like sending a carrier to the Mediterranean, things might never have gotten this far.  Now it sure looks like we are going in a day late, a dollar short and with no particular strategy other than to limit our losses and look good in the eyes of the international community.

Obama may even have trouble getting congressional authorization.  Senator Richard Lugar is far from impressed and he appears to be organizing the opposition.  

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/18/lugar-heads-to-white-house-for-meeting-on-potential-libya-attack/

To a large extent Lugar has a point.  If this is such an emergency, why did it take Obama over a month to make a decision?  It appears that Obama’s primary standard for sending in U.S. troops is the blessing by the UN.  That, unfortunately, is all too consistent with the way Obama approaches everything.  Just recently someone pointed out current slogan on the “new” Department of Justice website:

 http://www.justice.gov/

THE COMMON LAW IS THE WILL OF MANKIND ISSUING FROM THE LIFE OF THE PEOPLE

I have been unable to verify the source of this quote, but it sure isn’t from the U.S. Constitution.   But it is exactly the kind of verbiage one associates with the UN. 

To put this in perspective, I will provide the following quote from Ronald Reagan:

America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

Now compare that with some comments by Barack Obama:

“The fact that I am very proud of my country — and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world — does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise, and that includes us,”  

This is a long way from the shining city upon a hill. 

When asked how he would decide whether or not to use military force, Obama gave the following answer:

Note that there is zero mention of a threat to our own national security.  The only issue for Obama is whether or not the international community thinks it’s a good idea.

His stated goal for our country is as follows:

“less global leader than global facilitator, less savior than responsible partner.”

Some of this information was taken from the following Time article, but there were numerous other sources saying the same thing.   

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1910057,00.html#ixzz1H0EDMySu

That is the real problem with Libya.  It is the real problem with Obama.  We have become nothing more than a subservient tool of the all powerful UN.  The most pathetic thing of all is that none of this should have been a surprise.  This is exactly what he promised when he campaigned.  Perhaps, as others have pointed out before, the real problem is not Barack Obama, but rather the country that was stupid enough to elect him in the first place. 

TDM

This is just to brighten your Friday afternoon.  Has anyone noticed that Nancy Pelosi has been very silent lately?  It is not because she has shut up, but rather that no one in either party is listening any more.  The following blog article tells the tale:

http://www.publiusforum.com/2011/03/18/for-nancy-pelosi-its-lonely-at-the%E2%80%A6-bottom/

I predict that Queen Nancy will soon discover an urgent need to pursue other interests.  She went from having her own wide body jet (actually our wide body jet) available to wisk her around the world with her adoring entourage to flying commercial and giving press conferences no one bothers to attend.  

Take your victories where you find them.

TDM

The following article, from Jack Cashill is very interesting:

http://cashill.com/intellect_fraud/another_look_at_obamas.htm

It is hard for me to believe that this is possibly true.   I mean this is really easy to check out.  Either Obama used this social security number or he didn’t.  This is either a valid social security number or it isn’t.  How is it possible that we elected someone President of the United States with this type of question about his background?  But then for some reason neither the main stream media, or fox news, or even people like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are bringing this up.  What am I missing here?  If there is no fire, what is the source of all the smoke?  If this was just one thing, maybe you could dismiss it, but it isn’t just one thing.  It is everything about him.  Nothing ever seems to really add up. 

Today Donald Trump raised questions about Obama’s birth.  At a minimum this will make it a topic of conversation for a little while.  Of course when the economy is tanking, Gadhafi is gloating, Japan is melting and gas is soaring, there are a lot of other things to talk about.

This is utter nonsense.  These kind of stories, which go on and on, are either true or they aren’t.  If they aren’t, then someone should shut these people up.  If they are, then someone should pay attention.  But it seems no one who matters really cares.  Perhaps I am missing something, but I sure don’t know what it is.

TDM

I used to have a calendar on my desk titled, “The 365 Dumbest Things Ever Said.”  I do not need a calendar this year, because President Obama has set the ultimate new standard.  Following is his statement today regarding the crisis in Japan from the White House Blog:

One of the things I wanted to do on the show was, as people are filling out their brackets — this is obviously a national pastime; we all have a great time, it’s a great diversion.  But I know a lot of people are thinking how can they help the Japanese people during this time of need.  If you go to usaid.gov — usaid.gov — that will list all the nonprofits, the charities that are helping out there.  It would be wonderful for people to maybe offer a little help to the Japanese people at this time — as they’re filling out their brackets.  It’s not going to take a lot of time.  That’s usaid.gov.  It could be really helpful.

During a time when the Middle East is on fire, when the Stock Market is collapsing, when gas prices are soaring, when Japan is literally suffering a meltdown, Obama has been busy filling out his NCAA tournament bracket and planning his trip to Brazil.  (These were followed after his golf game over the weekend.)  He has shown zero leadership on this issue, and it has become too obvious to ignore.  Today his press secretary literally told reporters they should check with their own staff to find out what is happening with regard to that nuclear power plant in Japan.

The nuclear power plant fiasco in Japan is a world altering event.  No matter how this turns out, nuclear energy will never be viewed the same anywhere in the world.  Usually, the press can be counted on to overplay the disaster card in any situation to get more ratings.  In this particular case, even CNN has been slow to pick up significance of the problem.  If recent reports are accurate, this plant is melting down and is already so toxic that anyone trying to fix the problem will receive a lethal dose of radiation.  The problem is that this plant stopped producing electrical power almost immediately and then the tsunami destroyed the backup diesel generators.  That meant they only had eight hours of battery power available to run the pumps.  This happened last Friday, so it appears that all this time they have been trying to prevent a meltdown by a handful of brave workers trying to pump water by hand.   In the meantime, highly radioactive nuclear fuel rods have been exposed to the environment.   Even if this gets no worse, this is a very devastating event.  The pictures of Japanese helicopters desperately trying to “save” these reactors by air drops of water are horrifying.   This situation is completely out of control.

Obama did not cause this problem, but he dropped the ball big time with regard to providing leadership.  As a result, we have a nationwide run on Potassium Iodide pills and a whole lot of conflicting information.  This was an opportunity for Obama to truly take charge and appear Presidential.  Because he failed to do that, he has probably thrown away any chance of getting re-elected.  (We can only hope.)

It no longer matters whether nuclear energy is a great or terrible idea; it is now a political nightmare.   It will be political suicide to support nuclear energy for a long time.  Whether he deserves it or not, Obama is going to be the nuclear meltdown President.   His energy policy is in complete shambles.  He finally figured out that nuclear energy was the only alternative energy source that had a chance of replacing coal, oil or natural gas.  That is why he morphed from opposing nuclear energy to at least pretending to embrace it.  He seemed to want to appear to be in favor of nuclear energy, while simultaneously making sure it never actually developed.  Whether you think nuclear power plants are a good idea or not, they weren’t going to be built anytime soon.  We can’t even build the Oakland Bay Bridge in a reasonable period of time; my guess is that it will take about 20 years to get a nuclear power plant built.   In the meantime, gas prices are going through the roof, and they’ll no doubt get worse.  There will be national outrage if gas prices reach $5/gal, which seems quite possible, if not probable.   Suddenly, the drill-baby-drill crowd is looking pretty darn good.   In addition, that black smoke coming from all those coal fueled power plants look pretty good, too, compared to the pictures we are seeing from Japan.  After Obama leaped over to the nuclear energy side, he got knocked off his perch by the tsunami.

Expect to see a lot of reports similar to the following:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-near-misses-nuclear-plant,0,85570.story

I am sure a lot of really bright people are more than capable of explaining why nuclear power plants remain a great idea.  They may even be right.  But ultimately, the winds from Japan are blowing radioactive particles over the United States.  While the actual risk is quite small, with regard to the future of nuclear energy in the United States the fallout will be severe.

Obama will be known as the Nuclear Meltdown President who failed to provide leadership one too many times.  Unless something even worse happens, this will be the signature event of his administration, and it is a really ugly picture.

TDM

President Obama came into office believing that the United States should immediately withdraw from Iraq, talk our way into victory in Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo Bay.   He also thought he could borrow money and spend our way into prosperity, but that is another subject.  All of these goals were incredibly naïve.  But Obama had so little experience that he literally believed he would speak and everyone would think, “Oh, now I understand.”  This would result in a prosperous economy, world peace, the end of terrorism and salvation from global warming.  Unfortunately, he made some important decisions based on this naïve world view that are now doing grave harm to our national security.

Prior to Obama, every recent U.S. President asked one question immediately whenever there was a trouble spot anywhere in the world:  “where are my carriers?”  Obama does not ask that because he knows where these carriers are located.  They are in port waiting for repairs he has not funded. 

http://www.defensestudies.org/cds/where-are-our-carriers-increasingly-at-home/

It was bad enough that Obama spent most of his first year in office traveling the globe apologizing for our excessive use of force by other, less brilliant, Presidents.  But in addition to that, his actions have decimated our military to the extent that we couldn’t respond even if he did accidentally wake up with a backbone. 

http://oldnfo.blogspot.com/2011/03/where-are-our-carriers.html

In my personal opinion, which is very similar to that of the oath of office taken by the President of the United States, the primary duty of a President is to preserve, protect and defend this country.  Obama probably believes that as well, but he apparently does not feel that having a seven-ocean navy is essential to our defense.   Obama thought he was a uniquely gifted person who truly understood the world.  He thought all of the world’s problems would be solved by merely putting someone with his great intellect in charge.  He was the one we’ve been waiting for.  He viewed our military strength as an inconvenient burden.  In April, 2010, Obama said this in a speech:

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them,” Obama said.

 Now we are facing problems over the world and the question is no longer whether or not we should flex our military power but rather whether we have any real power available to use.  Of course the main stream media will blame this on overextending ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is somewhat true.  But the primary problem is that we apparently have a President who considers having a seven-ocean navy as an unnecessary expense item.

This is not unique to Obama.  Many leading Republicans were anti-military and extremely isolationist prior to World War II.  There were a lot of well-intended people who naively thought reducing the size of our military would reduce the chances of getting caught up in another war.  Sadly, they were very wrong.  Instead, the lack of military power and quick response to people like Hitler and Mussolini resulted in World War II.  History has shown us that failure to respond quickly, when dealing with these kinds of threats, just increases the ultimate cost of dealing with them later.  The real issue is not how Obama is handling Egypt and Libya, but rather that now the entire world knows they can challenge us with impunity.  Not only do we have a President who is incapable of providing leadership, he has decimated our military capacity to the extent that one questions whether he even could respond.   In the meantime, our national security is being “carriered” away.

TDM

The Obama administration is staggering toward some kind of conclusion in Libya.  This would be hysterical to watch, if it wasn’t for the sad fact that when Obama looks this bad, our country looks this bad.  There are only a couple of places in the world where any new government is likely to be better for us than the status quo.  One of those places is Iran, since it is hard to do worse than an Islamic fundamentalist state whose president is a firm believer in the 12^th Iman.  The other is Libya, home of the dearly beloved Moammar Gadhafi.  Ronald Reagan described him as a “Mad Dog,” which seems about right.

Obama kissed up to Gadhafi big time and the United States agreed to participate in the UN Human Rights Council in May, 2009.  George Bush also tried to play nice with Gadhafi, even sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Libya for a nice chat after Gadhafi got the nuclear itch scared out of him with our attack on Iraq.  But Bush never considered joining the Human Rights Council so we could get advice on how to improve our own human rights performance from fellow members like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cameroon and, of course, Libya.

That all changed in May, 2009, when the United States proudly joined these marvelous symbols of enlightenment, beginning with the appropriate apology:

We have not been perfect ourselves,” said Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador, after the United States got 167 votes out of 192. “But we intend to lead based on the strong principled vision that the American people have about respecting human rights, supporting democracy.”

Actually, Obama has pretty much avoided talking about human rights, unless he was apologizing for the United States.

Gadhafi thought Obama was just great and told the entire Muslim world that Obama was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Since I am not sure they even have sliced bread in Libya, you know that was special.

The pattern here is crystal clear.  If you are one of our enemies, like Iran or, now Libya, then protests against the government are ignored.  After all, we don’t want to stir things up unnecessarily.  But if you are a friend of ours, like Egypt, then Obama is much quicker to jump on the protest bandwagon.  Isn’t democracy great?  Who cares if the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to take charge?  We can handle that.  I mean it’s not like they hate the U.S. and want to annihilate Israel.  (Actually, it’s exactly that.)

Anyway, after withering and dithering and desperately seeking some hint as to the ultimate outcome so he could appear to be in charge, Obama finally decided it was time to take a stand.  He took time off between the Motown party and his most recent golf outing to read a statement warning Gadhafi his conduct was simply unacceptable.  Rumor has it that Qaddafi was really quaking in his boots at that.  Lately, Obama has escalated the rhetoric to “outrage.”  There are few things more frightening on this earth than seeing Obama read a TelePrompTer speech in his traditional monotone warning of dire consequences for those who dare defy him.  Actually this is rather scary when you consider the fact that this is the guy we chose to defend us.

So far, Gadhafi seems to be putting up one heck of a fight.  It reminds me of watching the O.J. Simpson low-speed police chase in the infamous white Bronco.  O.J. Simpson is a brutal murderer, but it was still good theater.  No one will shed a tear for Gadhafi, but the man does have a certain style.

In any event, the “Anointed One” has managed to get himself involved in the ultimate international keystone cops routine.  Who knows where this will go.  We could end up with either Gadhafi, Tea or Me:

Gadhafi

Moammar Gadhafi  ignores the rest of the world, as he has done for decades and just kills anyone who disagrees.  Although it is really hard to find a friend of Gadhafi these days, one suspects that at least some leaders are hoping he succeeds in stopping the revolution.  They don’t like him, but they also don’t like the sight of another government collapsing because of public protests. 

Tea

The Brits, who are trying to show some leadership to save the day.  I am not too optimistic after the British SAS troops promptly got themselves held hostage by the rebels they were trying to encourage on to victory.

ME

With Obama, it’s always about him.  I mean how else do you explain a President who plays golf while the world is on fire, yet has time to produce a feel-good video greeting for the Oscar crowd and even tries to steal some of the spotlight from the Superbowl by scheduling a softball interview with Bill O’Reilly?  With Obama the only thing you can ever count on is him saying:

“Me! Me! it’s all about ME!”

Libya is hardly a threat to us and regardless of what happens there it really shouldn’t matter, except for the fact that Libya has lots of oil and this has the potential to tank our already sinking economy.  Thank goodness we have a great leader in Barack Obama who knows that the one thing he can and should do is cut the red tape so we can “drill, baby, drill.”  Oops, I just remembered that the Obama administration sued for the right to continue the ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

I feel warm all over.

 TDM

Some people think that our most important President was George Washington.  The theory is that Washington could have become a king, but instead he chose to leave office voluntarily resulting in a peaceful transfer of power.  I personally think that John Adams was more important than George Washington.  Washington was getting old and it appears he may have just wanted to retire. He chose John Adams to be the next President, so he was comfortable with the transfer of power.  Washington had no children, so there was really never an option of him choosing a son or daughter to take over.  This is not to criticize Washington; it is just to put his decision in perspective.

But, John Adams did want to continue being President.  Jefferson and Adams were vicious political opponents by the time of the 1800 election.  Adams was bitter about the defeat and he thought Jefferson would be a terrible President.  Yet, Adams voluntarily turned over power to Jefferson.  In doing so, he established the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power, even when the results of the election are disappointing.

In Wisconsin, we have the opposite result.  The Republicans won control of the Assembly and the Senate.  Scott Walker was elected Governor.  Democrats were outraged because they strongly disagreed with the legislation proposed by Republicans.  They have a right to feel that way, and they have a right to voice their opposition.  But, unfortunately, all the Democratic Senators fled the state and the Democratic National Committee organized protests in an attempt to make it impossible for a peaceful transfer of power.  They resorted to extortion in their desperate attempt to regain political power.  The message sent by those Democrats is that elections only matter if they win.

 Unfortunately, the main stream media, including Fox News, does not grasp the significance of this action.  There are always a lot of people who are upset at the results of any election.  There were a lot of conservatives who were horrified when the 2008 election gave huge majorities in both the House and the Senate to Democrats.  They were even more concerned when Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.  Many of them predicted, correctly, that Democrats would abuse this power to pass controversial legislation that would destroy our economy, nationalize health care and promote their radical left-wing agenda. 

In my opinion, we are paying a terrible price, worldwide, for putting Democrats in power.   But, the solution is to win the next election; it is not to disregard our democratic process because we don’t like the results. 

Today, people all over the Middle East are protesting their government.  I am certain that many of them genuinely want freedom and democracy.  I just hope they follow the example of John Adams and not the Wisconsin Democratic Party.  Freedom is not fleedom.

 TDM

One of the great moments in sports is to attend a hockey game at the University of Wisconsin (UW).  While Wisconsin fans are known for their over-the-top support of their football and basketball programs, this pales in comparison to the following of the UW hockey team.  They are quite simply some of the most rabid fans in the world.

One of the traditions at a UW hockey game is the “Sieve Cheer.”  This is the cheer given when the other team gives up a goal.  It is designed to intimidate the other team and to humiliate the opposing goalie.  It works!  At first there is loud cheering for the goal.  Then the stadium becomes deathly quiet.  Suddenly, everyone in the stadium starts whispering “sieve…sieve…sieve,” slowly, softly and in perfect unison.   You can hardly hear it at first; you just kind of feel the air move.  But each time they whisper sieve, they whisper it a little louder.  The chant builds and builds until the entire stadium is standing up screaming, “Sieve!  Sieve!  Sieve!” at the top of their lungs.  It is a thing of beauty.

The point is that some words are just like the Sieve Cheer.  When you hear them, you know something big is coming.  In terms of a President of the United States, there is a very similar word.  It is “impeachment.”  This is rarely used.  Only two Presidents in the history of the United States have ever been impeached:  Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton.  Both were acquitted.  (Many people assume that Nixon was impeached, but that is not true.  Nixon resigned because Republican Senators advised him that they could not support him if he was impeached.)

It is extremely rare for political opponents to use the word “impeachment” with regard to a sitting U.S. President.  There were some extreme left radical Democrats who talked about impeachment with regard to George W. Bush, but this was never taken seriously, other than by Dennis Kucinich.  Even the biased main stream media and liberal Democrats, including people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, knew they had no grounds for impeaching George Bush.

But this week, Newt Gingrich used the word “impeachment” with regard to Barack Obama, and he was serious.  I was stunned, because Mr. Gingrich is very bright and is a very serious man.  I believe he chose this word carefully and deliberately. 

Gingrich brought up impeachment with regard to the decision by the Obama administration to unilaterally decide that the Defense of Marriage Act is clearly unconstitutional.  The issue is not whether you agree with this legislation, or not.  The issue is whether the President of the United States has the authority to unilaterally decide the constitutionality of a law passed by the United States Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.  Gingrich did something brilliant.  He explained this in terms that even the liberal left can understand.  The following is from an interview with Newsmax.com:

“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”

First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.

I doubt that anyone is going to immediate jump on the impeachment wagon.  Republicans are terrified because of the fall-out from the Clinton fiasco.  The liberal left and the Democratic Party only consider impeachment when a Republican is in office.  But Gingrich makes a very strong point, and this is going to force a lot of people to take a serious look at this issue.  Gingrich is clearly right.  The question is whether anyone will do something about it.

Keep in mind some other important factors.  Obama is likely to be out of office in about 18 months.  As long as Republicans are confident he will lose, they are unlikely to take on the risk of launching an impeachment effort against another Democratic President. They are also more focused on cutting the budget and repealing Obamacare.   In addition, the world is on fire, and things are bad enough without paralyzing the U.S. Presidency with the distraction of an impeachment trial.  Obama is pathetically weak as it is.  This would become worse if he were being impeached.  If Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden becomes President of the United States.  Biden would be required under the constitution to name a new Vice President, subject to confirmation by the Senate.  That person would immediately become the favorite to be elected President in 2012.  Republicans could lose a lot of sleep over that scenario.  They already think they are going to run the table in 2012, and this could change everything.

I do not know where this will lead, but the word has been uttered by someone who cannot be ignored.  The main stream media has to address the issue because they cannot ignore this type of charge from a man like Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House.  This is just like being at a UW hockey home game and hearing that first, ever so soft “Sieve.”  You always wonder just how loud it is going to get.

TDM

Governor Walker has already won in Wisconsin.  It is all over but the shouting and the shouting is near the end.  The fat lady may not be singing yet, but she is warming up in the wings.   Notice how the Obama administration is trying to re-write history pretending they weren’t actively promoting the protestors:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/02/21/obama%E2%80%99s-attempt-to-distance-himself-from-wisconsin-rally-fails/

The union bubble has burst and the collapse is going to be bigger than you can even imagine:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49893_Page2.html

The unions will continue to put on a good show, because they have no other option.  But sympathy demonstrations in New York and California aren’t going to have much impact on Wisconsin.  The Governor is rock solid and so is the Republican legislature.  It is really quite simple.  Most of us, not employed by the state or federal government, have first-hand experience with the arrogance and incompetence of the bureaucracy. Combine that with the knowledge that they are making huge salaries,  don’t have to pay for benefits, don’t have to contribute to their flush retirement accounts and can’t be fired and annoyance turns to resentment.  Now fuel this with them calling in sick so they can scream and yell because they are being asked to accept a minimum cut in benefits, when a lost of people have been forced to cut their personal budget to the bone, and resentment turns to rage.

This was bound to happen.  The union bubble was bigger than the housing bubble and it was just as economically unsustainable.  The public sector unions thought this would last forever.  They would just keep demanding more pay and benefits and their lackey politicians would just keep raising taxes.  But the problem is that they ran out of people to tax.  No one, and I mean no one, is even pretending that raising taxes is the solution to our financial problems.  Even Governors like Brown are making significant cuts that would not have been considered just a few months ago.  This is just like the housing bubble.  Once you run out of buyers willing to pay inflated prices, the bubble will burst.  Well state governments just stopped buying.

Senator Kohl, from Wisconsin is a liberal Democrat.  He is also up for election in 2012.  He did not exactly come out in support of the union protests.  Instead he gave a marsh mellow middle of the road comment.  Just a few months ago, Senator Kohl would have never risked losing union support.  Now is he is at least equally concerned over being portrayed as too pro-union.  It is a remarkable change of outlook.

Democratic politicians all over the country are questioning the value of the coveted union endorsement.  Up until now, it was the only way to get elected in many states.  By 2012, it may be the kiss of death. It is impossible to overstate the significance of the change.   Not only are the unions rapidly losing political power, they are losing money.  Prior to the Cheese State Rebellion unions could be counted on to pour millions of dollars into electing Democrats who supported their agenda.  That worked for a long time.  It even worked in California during the 2010 election.   But, last summer the United States Supreme Court leveled the playing field by repealing portions of McCain – Feingold.  Suddenly the business community had enough money available to fight back.   This, in addition to the Tea Party involvement,  is part of the reason for the amazing results of the 2010 mid-term elections.

So, just at a time when unions are taking it on the chin because of a declining economy, they are facing real competition from the Chamber of Commerce and the Tea Party; they get kicked to the curb by Governor Walker.  For the public sector unions, this amounts to a perfect storm.  We do not know the full amount of havoc that will result from this storm, but we know which way it is blowing and we know who is going to get hurt.

The Union bubble has burst.  The decline will be more rapid and more complete than anyone thought possible.  It’s a beautiful thing.

TDM