#and if you are saying “well the democrats are coercing consent by running against the Republicans”

[stormandmoonlight]

two common talking points about non-voting from the left:

1. depriving the Democrats of your vote will show that you will not empower genocide and punish them for doing so

2. the Democrats will not be affected if the Republicans win power because they are the same class

does anyone else see a contradiction in terms here?

[azuremallone]

Azure's Corner

Democrat Governors are coming out with the same line, "... we'll fight their hateful agenda."

Let's be clear on this, shall we? The Democrats are the only ones running around calling Republicans Hitlers. Which in so doing, have undermined their own arguments. They are the ones who specifically, as Kamala stated she would have if elected, implemented Draconian laws in support of liberalized authoritarianism.

In California, your rights as a parent belong to the State of California. Your child when in school and with a mental illness, can be abused by the State, manipulated by the State, chemically castrated and surgically mutilated by the State: Without your consent. Should you find out and oppose it, your child can be confiscated by the State and you can be imprisoned.

California isn't a Republican state.

Any Democrat Governor coming out claiming that the Trump Administration is going to be this vile and evil thing coming after people, let's just look at how Kamala was going to implement price control on everything. The Government, specifically only the President, would be able to dictate what prices were on everything. From food to appliances, and Biden was already laying the foundation for it by banning consumers from purchasing certain appliances. If you bought a gas stove, for instance, you could wind up fined and potentially imprisoned.

This wasn't a Republican President saying these things, these were Democrats running for and already was President.

Imagine Kamala jacking up the prices on certain affordable in-window portable air conditioners from a hundred bucks to a thousand bucks. Your only option is a swamp cooler that costs half that much. You are poor and live in a hot part of the country.

What then, fans?

So when people like myself called Kamala a Communist; it wasn't vilification or demonization. It was because she fucking is one. Her father is one. Her mentor, advisor, and financial backer George Soros is one. She speaks at secretive Communist gatherings in Palm Springs hosted by Soros. She's so close to him, his son visited her repeatedly last year more times than anyone else to provide "advice."

Who was running the show while Biden drooled?

The very people from Newsome to Walz, Hochul included, all are either delusional or they're lying to you. Hochul was buddy buddy with a Chinese Foreign Agent working for her as her assistant. You can't tell me she didn't know her assistant was a spy for China, altering documents and bribing or coercing New York officials into doing her bidding while also manipulating Hochul.

Don't believe me yet?

From every BLUE State, there's a list of spies operating for China within the United States. Their associations with the governments of California, Chicago, New York, and perhaps others are well documented.

But this isn't just about that as a standing platform as to why the Democrats have been operating what really looked like and sounded like Communism. It's also that they had turned a blind eye to real Nazi fascism in the form of ACAB, the purported Antifa groups operating throughout the United States. Where did they go this election? Why aren't they rioting like they did when Trump first won?

It's easy: The Democrats were so proud and felt they held the reigns on you as a citizen, that they didn't manipulate the narrative or perhaps they realized they were being manipulated.

It appears very soundly that the Democrats intentionally sabotaged their own campaign, but they didn't. It was hubris. It was relying on demonization of Republicans and insulting Americans for voting Republican. Every pundit on The View is demonizing and spouting racist hatred on national television against any person of color who voted for Trump.

I thought liberals loved people of color and that they weren't racist?

Sunni claims her daughter has less rights and that she's part of the working class, that she has less rights. This is untrue. The rights not held by the Federal Government rest in the States or the Citizen. Everything she's saying is wholly wrong. She's also not a working class person when she makes millions per year.

Whoopi makes a baseless claim that many people she knows died trying to vote. No one died trying to vote in 2024. I mean, unless you count the 16 million missing voters from 2020...

Furthermore, Whoopi goes on to iterate that Trump's rhetoric is synonymous with the racist words that Biden himself espoused 50 to 70 years ago!

However, they stick to the guns that Trump said he'd be a dictator on day one, out of context. He was making a joke. If you watch what he said, he was joking because he iterated that. The news ran with it out of context and these idiots believe it.

Here's the real take on Biden, so why weren't liberalized woke Democrats having the same reaction?

It's because they're the white wealthy of the nation seeking to eek out their slice of the elitist pie when America turns Communist through their policies. Just like what happened in Russia when it became the Soviet Union under Stalin, as China did under Mao, and just like Russia is becoming today under Putin.

Listen to this racist ass breakdown of the demographics of the election:

"Hispanic voters think like, well, any other voters."

The fuck do you mean by that? Is it a presumption that Hispanic voters don't think like other voters or just that they don't think? Then you get these white folks making the assumptive statement that they're surprised that Hispanics don't vote Democrat, that only 'a few' or 'some' are Republican. That white bitch then tries to placate her comment by stating they'd vote conservative, implying their religious views to which the one Hispanic woman on the show corrects her that there's a spectrum of views in the Hispanic community.

Then they make this comment that 70% of white women voting for Trump are uneducated. Then she makes the allegation that Latino men are what? Misogynistic. She doesn't say it, but her implication of it. The call out that what she was implying was the actual problem.

Duh.

So this is the truth. The Democrats really pushed this Nation to a breaking point by demonization and ignoring how racist they actually are.

The real threat to this country are those Democrats who are life-long senate and representatives, or operatives seeking to obtain as much power as possible because they believe that people of color are dumb and need the Government to manage their lives.

Yeah...

[libertaridan]

Do We Live In A Democracy? Should We?

In my view many people today largely believe three false things about democracy:

That they know what it is;

That they should want to live in one as currently experienced;

That they do live in one.

We shouldn’t settle to live in a democracy as we currently experience it. It’s not a real democracy and emphasises all the negatives while diminishing many of the positives that ought to come out of living  in a democracy. It would be better, instead, to live in a Republic, but I’ll come on to that. Some people might say I’m splitting hairs and I’m happy to accept that, but I do think it matters.

Around 400 BC Plato rejected the Athenian manifestation of democracy because he believed it to be anarchic, lacking in unity, deferring to the impulses and whims of citizens, and run by fools. On virtually all of those points, if he said them today, he would be right.

According to Plato democracy mistakes anarchy (his use of the word) for freedom, and must degenerate into tyranny or mob rule (which I would argue is just another kind of tyranny).

In context – Plato was a statist, preferring rule by ‘philosopher kings’, a rare or mythical few who are wise but unwilling or lacking the ambition to rule over others. It is against this locus of power that he compares democracy and so we can understand why Plato called democracy anarchic – lacking a central plan and purpose and leader to ‘get the job done’. Perhaps if such wise and benevolent people Plato believed in could always be found, he might be on to something, unfortunately world history from ancient to modern times shows that such people are rare, and rarer still in positions of power. Instead the ‘man who can’ ends up being incompetent or a dictator. In most cases give someone a little power, as they suppose, and they immediately begin to exercise it badly to the harm of others.

It seems we can choose the tyranny of an all-powerful single ruler in a king or dictator, or the tyranny of mob rule in a modern unchecked democracy.

To highlight the inherent flaws in an un-checked democracy James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers of the USA, said this:

“…there is nothing [in democracy] to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” (James Madison, Federalist Papers Nos. 10 and 51)

According to him, if you want protection for weaker people, or people who think or believe differently, or who are outspoken, and if you want personal security, or to defend your property rights, you won’t get any of that certain in a democracy.

And he’s right, isn’t he? The form of democracy we live in hasn’t protected your property rights, has at various times and in various ways punished or coerced those who believe differently, or wish to live differently, to the great mass of people.

Here’s the thing, unchecked democracy allows people, you, me, our neighbours, our work colleagues, ordinary people, to use state power to do things to us that they couldn’t otherwise do. Things they wouldn’t dream of doing on an individual basis. None of your neighbours would dream of stealing money from your wallet every night to pay for their gym membership. But more than you realise think its OK to vote for higher taxes so you can fund the local leisure centre which you don’t use but they do.

Do you see what I mean?

Through democracy what is to stop your neighbours from voting higher taxes that rob you of your earnings? Or passing laws to tax the size of your garden until you have to sell up because you can’t afford to keep your own property? Or to ban things you like? Or coerce you to do things you don’t like? Where are the limits on this tyranny of mob rule?

There are none. And here is why.

Because the only limit on democratic mob rule comes through a limit on State power.

Why?

Because the result of democratic activity is enacted by state power. Limit the state, and you limit democratic mob rule or “collective force”. Instead of mob rule we might use the term “collective force”, it’s the same thing.

It is precisely for this reason that the Founding Fathers of the USA sought to address the criticism of James Madison, that “…such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property…”, by combining democracy with a republic (which is a State in which supreme power is held by the people, and flows up from the people to their elected representatives and elected President – rather than a monarch).

Within the republic framework, the Founding Fathers placed limits on State power within a written constitution. And this is important. Because where a government is limited, so is the opportunity for democracy to become tyrannical mob rule or of “collective force” likewise limited.

And we do want to limit that. Because without any limits democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. James Madison made that point very clear.

So, to use the two wolves and a sheep analogy, a government limited by a written constitution would not, for instance, have the power to kill the sheep to feed the wolves. It wouldn’t matter if it was two wolves voting against one sheep, or two hundred thousand wolves voting against one sheep, the government wouldn’t be allowed to do it, and so such a vote would be invalid, and have no effect.

And that’s really important for democracy, that’s how minorities, the weak, the outspoken, the ‘different’, you, your family, your freedom and your property are protected. Through a constitution that limits government, and which says government can’t hurt these people no matter how many people vote for it.

Bastiat, the French political philosopher, said the legitimate role government should be limited to as one that defends each person (their life), their liberty, and their property. The Law should be nothing more, and nothing less, than this. To him there is no place for “collective force” other than in defence of these three rights.

Such a government is indeed the aim of libertarians worldwide.

That’s what we want, right? We want to be protected. We don’t want to have to worry each election that this time we’re going to be the sheep being fed to the majority wolves. Right?

We don’t have such a limited government here.

According to Bastiat, in his essay “The Law”, governments as he experienced them, and it’s no less true for us today, governments have perverted the law. Bastiat says:

“…unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. …it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. …to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.” (Bastiat, The Law)

And we will recognise the behaviour of our neighbours, and even ourselves, at the ballot box when we read some of his further explanations.

“…Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

“But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.”

“…when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.” (Ibid.)

This is what happens when government perverts law away from defence of life, liberty and property.

Ezra Taft Benson, former secretary for Agriculture under Eisenhower, had this to say about legalized plunder:

“Once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth through taxation and providing so-called “benefits” for some of its citizens, it becomes a means for legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited power that is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit his favorite charity, all with the other fellow’s money, of course. … With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistributive function, then forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism.” (Benson, Former Secretary for Agriculture under Eisenhower)

The answer, says Bastiat, is to restrict the law… or, in our words – limited government.

Well, we want it, but we don’t have it.

Because in the UK, there are no such limits on government. There is no written constitution stating what those limits are. The limits are legislation which can be changed at any time. We’re living in such a time now, the Coronavirus Act, as it’s known, imposes some of the most tyrannical restrictions we’ve ever encountered – and you and I weren’t asked for our consent. Let that sink in. The right to assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion, even the ability to work was stripped away just like that! We can argue about whether it was justified – but my point is that it happened without any reference to your views on the matter. This is unlimited government in action. (We found ourselves in the EU in the same kind of way, with no reference to us – bear that in mind too.)

In the USA, at least in principle they are a republic, and any and all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government a retained in the individual states, and then it’s down to the constitutions of each state after that. Texas is an example of a republic in the republic. But in the UK, we’re not a republic of any kind. The courts recently ruled, among all the fighting over Brexit, that Parliament is sovereign – not you, and not me. In my view that is something that needs to change.

But even in the parliament is sovereign ruling we’re neither a republic nor what I would call a democracy.

Think about what happens in elections? You vote, for a person. Then they do whatever they do until the next election. How much voice do you actually have? You only get a referendum when Parliament decides to give you one. The whole Brexit campaign, that’s still going on by the way, showed exactly how little democracy we actually have on one hand. But then the spending promises in an effort to buy your votes with your money and your neighbour’s money show how much we do have on the other hand. We have just enough democracy for those in power to legitimise and maintain their power – not much more, and probably less.

I put to you another definition of democracy, one which we don’t enjoy now, but which I prefer. It’s much closer to pure republicanism, and it’s certainly libertarian…

How about we let each individual in the country make their own choices for themselves? Millions of little votes each day, manifested by the actions they take, in the direction they prefer. What, for instance, is more democratic than the free market – instead of cronyism and subsidy, each business transaction is a real-time vote in favour of a product or service, those who serve their customers best – they succeed, those who don’t – they fail. There is no coercion in this, no state or government picking winners and losers, there is just millions of individuals voting by choosing to do business or not. That to me is the ultimate democracy. Each represents themselves, making choices they believe will help them meet their individual objectives in life.

We can have this. We can even have it here in the UK.

To achieve it we need to elect MPs who believe in this and are willing to start undoing things that have been done in the past. We need to shrink the size and reach and power of the state. Then, with all the state meddling gone, with all the trappings of former democratic decisions that represent people imposing their views on their neighbours in things that were none of their business, gone! Then we can have this.

To get it we need more people to understand the true nature of democracy, how in its really vital form it naturally exists when people are free in all of their free choices as sovereign individuals while protected in their life, liberty and property.

The unlimited government we currently experience robs people of these freedoms, ultimately limiting naturally occurring democracy to whatever Parliament permits while it overreaches and perverts the true purpose of law away from the defence of life, liberty, and property to maintaining and growing its own power.

On that basis, back to the question. No. We don’t live in a democracy. We must not be fooled by the fact we get to vote every so often. This is all theatre. What we currently experience as democracy is the activated perversion of the law, in which the power of the state increases as electors fight between themselves via the ballot box, who will be the next victim of the next perversion of the law.

I choose individual sovereignty and individual freedom – that is where real democracy is manifest, and nowhere else. Until we have that, we don’t live in a democracy.

[strike-back-now-info]

The Case For Obama’s Impeachment  Posted on

The Case For Obama’s Impeachment  Posted on

June 9, 2014

by

Bob Livingston

 34.5K Shares

There is clear and convincing evidence that President Barack Obama has on numerous occasions willfully committed treason and high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

The “crimes” that led to the impeachment of both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and the resignation of Richard Nixon pale in comparison to Obama’s. Johnson’s “crimes” were purely political. He favored a policy of benevolent reconciliation with the Southern States following the Civil War. He issued a series of proclamations that directed the Southern States to hold conventions and elections to reform their governments; he attempted to veto a number of bills establishing military districts to oversee the new State governments; he vetoed an incumbent protection act called the Tenure of Office Act; and he fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who was working against him at every turn. Those moves were all contrary to the wishes of the Republicans who controlled both houses of Congress in the aftermath of the war. The impeachment vote in the Senate failed by one vote on all three counts to receive the two-thirds majority necessary to remove Johnson from office.

Clinton was impeached for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit and the related independent counsel’s investigation in the Monica Lewinsky affair and various other Clinton misdeeds. Forty-five Senators—all of them Republican—voted to remove Clinton from office over the perjury charge. Fifty voted to remove him for obstruction of justice. Though Clinton was clearly guilty, not one Democrat in the Senate voted to impeach. And, in fact, the Senate voted 100-0 to not hear any live witnesses in the trial.

Nixon, of course, resigned a couple of weeks after the House opened its impeachment hearings over his role in the cover-up of the Watergate break-in and other allegations of his misuse of office, the facts of which were just coming to light at the time.

The “I-word” hit the mainstream media after war-loving, chicken hawk and John McCain-lapdog Senator Lindsey Graham warned Obama that Republicans would call for his impeachment if he released more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without Congressional approval. Before that, anyone mentioning impeachment was shouted down and cast by the media and the establishment as nutty, kooky or… wait for it… a conspiracy theorist. Obama responded to Graham’s threat by having his underlings release news that another Gitmo prisoner may soon be sprung.

I am under no illusion that the impeachment proceedings are in the offing, regardless of what Obama does. Neither is Obama. Graham’s threat was as idle as an inattentive parent’s threat to a misbehaving child. When you hear a parent tell his child “No” over and over, and then hear him say, “You do that once more and you’re in trouble,” you know that child is never disciplined — and the child knows it, too. This is Congress and Obama.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats in Washington, D.C., are interested in anything other paying lip service to the Constitution while solidifying their respective grips on power and transferring America’s wealth to their favored crony partners. That is all that matters in D.C. Neither party will intentionally do anything to upset their cushy apple cart.

And the MSM, which long ago abandoned any pretense at objective journalism, are beholden to the elites and in the tank for the regime, drunk as they are on being next to the power structure. You can’t expect real journalism with a lineup like this:

ABC Senior Correspondent Claire Shipman is married to outgoing White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of top Obama official Ben Rhodes, who is responsible for rewriting the Benghazi talking points.

ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama special adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.

However, six years of this lawless regime is more than any sane person should be expected to endure. Even leftist legal scholar Jonathan Turley called Obama “the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”

So here are my articles of impeachment — in no particular order — for the undocumented usurper currently despoiling the People’s House: Barack Hussein Obama.

He provided aid and comfort to the enemy by releasing five suspected terrorists and former members of the Taliban who participated in or orchestrated attacks against Americans.

He violated a law he signed six months prior requiring him to notify Congress 30 days before releasing GITMO detainees.

He has willfully and repeated violated Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by continuously amending the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

He knowingly and willfully violated Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution by signing the ACA, knowing full well it was a bill for raising revenue that had originated in the Senate.

He engaged in fraud by repeatedly lying to the American people about the effects of the ACA by claiming that Americans could keep their current coverage and physicians if they chose.

He exercised an abuse of power by instructing, through his proxies, agents of the Internal Revenue Service to target conservative organizations and his critics for extra scrutiny and audits.

He participated in an obstruction of justice and a criminal conspiracy by hindering a Congressional investigation into the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal and using Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice in that obstruction.

He provided aid and comfort to the enemy by ordering or allowing the sale of arms and ammunition to al-Qaida-linked terrorists in Syria and by dispatching agents of the government to advise and train in the use of the those weapons and in military tactics.

He failed, despite repeated requests by the U.S. Consulate, to provide the security necessary to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel and the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

He knowingly and willfully denied military assistance to Americans under attack at the Benghazi Consulate, resulting in the trashing of the U.S. Consulate building, the theft of sensitive documents and the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

He knowingly and willfully lied and ordered his proxies to lie about the circumstances surrounding the attack on the U.S Consulate in Benghazi, thereby perpetrating a fraud on the American people in order to ensure his re-election and to cover up his illegal gun running operation.

He violated the War Powers Act by failing to gain Congressional approval for the military attack on Libya that resulted in the overthrow of the Libyan regime.

He provided aid and comfort to the enemy by using the American military and intelligence organizations and allowing the sale of arms and ammunition to al-Qaida-linked terrorists in order to assist them in overthrowing a legal regime in Libya that Congress had not declared war upon.

He has repeatedly made war on various Middle Eastern countries with the use of drone attacks without the approval of Congress in violation of the War Powers Act and in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

He has ordered the murders of at least three American citizens without due process in violation of Amendments 5, 6, 8 and 14.

He has repeatedly used the Environmental Protection Agency to contravene Congress and pass laws harmful to American businesses and consumers, in violation of Article I, Section 1.

He has repeatedly violated the 4th Amendment by allowing agencies under his direction to continue to spy upon, wiretap and collect personal information of American citizens who are not criminal suspects.

He has repeatedly violated Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution by disregarding laws passed by Congress, including, but not limited to, U.S. immigration laws, civil rights laws and the Defense of Marriage Act.

He knowingly allowed the illegal sale of weapons to Mexican narco-terrorists that were later used to kill Americans, including border agent Brian Terry.

He obstructed justice by participating with Attorney General Holder in a cover-up of the Fast and Furious gun running scheme.

He knowingly and willfully violated Article IV, Section 4 by failing to protect the border States against invasion, and in fact encouraged that invasion through his rhetoric and with the use of executive orders that contravened U.S. immigration law.

He knowingly and willfully violated Article IV, Section 4 (guaranteeing a republican form of government to each State) by strong-arming, intimidating and threatening to withhold funds from the States of Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Rhode Island and Arizona in order to coerce the people and legislatures of those States and prevent the passage of laws according to the citizen’s wishes.

He instructed his Interior Secretary to ignore the orders of Federal courts to lift a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which denied oil workers an opportunity to earn a living and damaged the U.S. economy.

He broke established precedent and contravened established bankruptcy law, to the detriment of the bond holders and the advantage of his campaign contributors (auto unions) in the General Motors bailout.

In the auto bailout, he knowingly and willfully deprived numerous auto dealers of their dealerships for political reasons in violation of Amendments 4 and 14.

He repeatedly transferred funds from the U.S. Treasury to his cronies and campaign contributors for use in failing green energy schemes.

He violated Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution by appointing officers without first obtaining the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

In his book Faithless Execution, Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, Andrew C. McCarthy notes: “Impeachment is a grave remedy on the order of a nuclear strike.” Obama’s lawless Presidency has been nothing less than a nuclear strike on the U.S. Constitution, which now lies in tatters.

“Impeachment is a political remedy: even if palpably guilty of profound transgressions, a president will not be ousted without a groundswell of public ire,” McCarthy writes.

In his case for impeachment, McCarthy breaks Obama’s high crimes and misdemeanors into seven articles. They are:

Article I: The President’s willful refusal to execute the laws faithfully and usurpation of the legislative authority of Congress.

Article II: Usurping the Constitutional authority and prerogatives of Congress.

Article III: Dereliction of Duty as President and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Article IV: Fraud on the American People.

Article V: Failure to execute the Immigration Laws faithfully.

Article VI: Failure to execute the laws faithfully: Department of Justice.

Article VII: Willfully undermining the Constitutional rights of the American people that he is sworn to preserve, protect and defend.

Those articles contain many of the charges laid out above. But they also include Obama’s defiance of Congressional law and court orders in obstructing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project, his defiance of Federal law requiring him to address Medicare insolvency, his undermining of and contempt for Congress’ duty to conduct oversight of Federal agencies, his dereliction of duty by imposing unconscionable rules of engagement that endanger American troops, lying about Iran negotiations and assisting that country with its nuclear program, politicization of the DoJ, politically motivated selective prosecution by the DoJ, DoJ investigations and other intimidation of journalists in violation of Amendment 1, systematic stonewalling of Congress, abridgement of Amendment 1 in appeasing Islamic supremacists by adopting repressive sharia blasphemy standards, suppression of information about Islamic terrorism, including its occurrence at Ft. Hood, abridgement of Amendment 1 by vindictively targeting and prosecuting high-profile critics, and his abridgement of Amendment 2 by joining an international treaty despite Congressional opposition.

McCarthy notes that since impeachment is a political rather than a legal remedy, the burden of proof is different. But he also states that as long as there is no groundswell of opposition to the President’s actions from the public, there will be no impeachment.

I’ll go one step further: As long as there is not a two-thirds majority of Republicans in the Senate, there will be no impeachment. But even in the off chance that Republicans were to somehow come up with 66 Senators willing to remove the President, the Republicans would not have the stomach to attempt it because the sycophantic media would gin impeachment up as a racial issue and stir up street riots that would make Watts riots look like a park stroll.

The ensuing carnage would likely result in the removal of the entire power structure in Washington. And the establishment — whether it sides with the Democrats or Republicans — will agree it can’t have that.

Update: In the wake of the growing chorus of calls for Obama’s impeachment, the GOP establishment has publicly announced it cares more for power than the Constitution. 

https://personalliberty.com/case-obamas-impeachment/

[clubofinfo]

Expert: Jesus! Where will it end? How low do you have to stoop in this country to be President? … We’ve come to a point where every four years this national fever rises up — this hunger for the Saviour, the White Knight, the Man on Horseback — and whoever wins becomes so immensely powerful … that when you vote for President today you’re talking about giving a man dictatorial power for four years… The whole framework of the presidency is getting out of hand. It’s come to the point where you almost can’t run unless you can cause people to salivate and whip each other with big sticks. You almost have to be a rock star to get the kind of fever you need to survive in American politics. — Hunter S. Thompson, gonzo journalist Here’s the question I pose to you: has Donald Trump been a blessing or a curse to the architects of the American police state? One thing is for sure: a year into his presidency, Trump hasn’t done much to improve the lot of the American people. The predators of the police state are still wreaking havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government still doesn’t listen to the citizenry, it still refuses to abide by the Constitution, which is our rule of law, and it still treats the citizenry as a source of funding and little else. Police officers are still shooting unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agents—including local police—are still being armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies are still fleecing taxpayers. Government technicians are still spying on our emails and phone calls. Government contractors are still making a killing by waging endless wars abroad. In other words, the American police state is still alive and well and flourishing. Nothing has changed. Rather than draining the corrupt swamps of Washington, as he repeatedly promised, Trump and his brand of reality TV politics have merely redirected our attention. Trust me, the swamps are still stagnant with corruption. Indeed, we are still the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority. This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government—from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations. We are still ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American. We are still viewed as relatively expendable in the eyes of government: faceless numbers of individuals who serve one purpose, which is to keep the government machine running through our labor and our tax dollars. Those in power aren’t losing any sleep over the indignities we are being made to suffer or the possible risks to our health. All they seem to care about are power and control. We are still being made to suffer countless abuses at the government’s hands. We still have little protection against standing armies (domestic and military), invasive surveillance, marauding SWAT teams, an overwhelming government arsenal of assault vehicles and firepower, and a barrage of laws that criminalize everything from vegetable gardens to lemonade stands. In the name of national security, we’re still being subjected to government agencies such as the NSA, FBI and others listening in on our phone calls, reading our mail, monitoring our emails, and carrying out warrantless “black bag” searches of our homes. Adding to the abuse, we still have to deal with surveillance cameras mounted on street corners and in traffic lights, weather satellites co-opted for use as spy cameras from space, and thermal sensory imaging devices that can detect heat and movement through the walls of our homes. That doesn’t even begin to touch on the many ways in which our Fourth Amendment rights are still being trampled upon by militarized police and SWAT teams empowered to act as laws unto themselves. In other words, despite Trump (or because of him), freedom—or what’s left of it—is still being threatened from every direction. Trump has done nothing to wrest control of the government from the Deep State, that shadowy elite group of powerbrokers and corporations who call the shots in Washington. Trump has done nothing to prevent the government from continuing to plunder and steal from the American taxpayer. In fact, his administration has paved the way for even more theft in the form of civil asset forfeiture. Trump has failed to end the government’s endless wars. To the contrary, he has fallen in line with the military industrial complex. Most of all, Trump has proven to be as deaf, dumb and blind as every president before him when it comes to the plight of the citizenry. The new boss really is just the same as the old boss. We’re still on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. The Deep State is winning. Get ready. We’re just a few short years away from the dystopian future depicted in the film V for Vendetta, which is no future at all. Written and produced by the Wachowskis, V for Vendetta (2005) provides a powerful visual commentary on how totalitarian governments such as our own exploit fear and use mass surveillance, censorship, terrorism, and militarized tactics to control, oppress and enslave. The year is 2027 and the country is ruled by a totalitarian corporate state where concentration camps (jails, private prisons and detention facilities) have been established to house political prisoners and others deemed to be enemies of the state. Executions of undesirables (extremists, troublemakers and the like) are common, while other enemies of the state are made to “disappear.” The television networks are controlled by the government with the purpose of perpetuating the regime. And most of the population is hooked into an entertainment mode and are clueless. Enter V, a vigilante in a Guy Fawkes mask, who rails against the people’s loss of freedom at the hands of a fascist government. Says V: Where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic, you turned to the now high chancellor… He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Sounds painfully familiar, doesn’t it? We, too, have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests. Yet having bought into the false notion that the government knows best and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave, we have allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness. The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny. As V remarks: Since mankind’s dawn, a handful of oppressors have accepted the responsibility over our lives that we should have accepted for ourselves. By doing so, they took our power. By doing nothing, we gave it away. We’ve seen where their way leads, through camps and wars, towards the slaughterhouse. In other words, it makes no difference whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now embodies the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priority is to remain in power. When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, and then jails us if we dare step out of line, punishes us unjustly without remorse, and refuses to own up to its failings, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic. Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government. So where does that leave us? In V for Vendetta, it takes a desperate act of terrorism (V blows up the seat of government on the fifth of November) for the people to finally mobilize and stand up to the government’s tyranny. This is what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent: people get desperate, citizens lose hope, and lawful, nonviolent resistance gives way to unlawful, violent resistance. As John F. Kennedy warned, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Do not wait to act until there is no alternative but violence. As director James McTeighe observed about the tyrannical regime in V for Vendetta: It really showed what can happen when society is ruled by government, rather than the government being run as a voice of the people. I don’t think it’s such a big leap to say things like that can happen when leaders stop listening to the people. What will it take for the government to start listening to the people again? We’ve got to make them hear us using every nonviolent means available to us: picket, protest, march, boycott, speak up, sound off and reclaim control over the narrative about what is really going on in this country. Mind you, the government doesn’t want to hear us. It doesn’t even want us to speak. In fact, it’s done a diabolically good job of establishing roadblocks to prevent us from exercising our First Amendment right to speech and assembly and protest. Still we must persist. As author Erich Fromm warned in his book On Civil Disobedience, “At this point in history, the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization.” In other words, stop worshipping false idols. Stop waiting for Trump to drain the swamps, or some whistleblower to topple the tyrants, or some other political savior to swoop in and fix all that’s wrong with this country. Stop allowing yourselves to be drawn into divisive party politics. Stop thinking of yourselves as members of a particular political party, as opposed to citizens of the United States. Most of all, stop looking away from the injustices and cruelties and endless acts of tyranny that have become hallmarks of American police state. As war journalist Chris Hedges concluded, “Not having to make moral choice frees you from a great deal of anxiety. It frees you from responsibility. And it assures that you will always be wrapped in the embrace of the powerful as long as, of course, you will do or dance to the tune the powers play… when you do what is right, you often have to understand that you are not going to be lauded and praised for it. Making a moral decision always entails risks, certainly to one’s career and to one’s standing in the community.” Remember, remember the fifth of November. Why should we remember the fifth of November? Because it commemorates a day in history when a desperate vigilante tried to bring about a violent revolution. Trust me, no one wants a violent revolution. Americans speak reverently of how our founders mounted a revolution to secure our freedoms, but our platitudes gloss over the terrible toll it demanded of them: families torn apart, lives lost and years of misery and hardship. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the moral choice before us is clear: it is the choice between tyranny and freedom, dictatorship and autonomy, peaceful slavery and dangerous freedom, and manufactured pipe dreams of what America used to be versus the gritty reality of what she is today. http://clubof.info/