Enough of the "impeach Obama" talk already!

I am definitely no fan of Barack Obama. I don't like a socialist in office as my chief executive. Then again, George W. Bush has not exactly been a small government type, either and was a huge disappointment in many ways. In other ways, he did the right thing. They both deserves praise where warranted and criticism where warranted.

Obama has already made some huge mistakes, in my opinion, and has been in office less than a week. The decisions to allow embryonic stem cell research, fund abortion in foreign nations, close Gitmo, and nominate a huge tax cheat as head of the Treasury Department (including IRS) are the ones that readily come to mind.

However, I have a huge problem with the movement to impeach the sorry excuse for a decision taker. Just because a President takes decisions that I do not like, that I find repulsive, or are unethical does not make him a candidate for impeachment. It makes him a candidate for unelection.

The Constitution has specific states in Article II, Section 4, "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Bad decision taking as described in the last paragraph do not qualify as treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors.

There are other things such as a disputed qualification for the presidency, also outlined in that same article, such as being a natural born citizen. If that qualification can be proven to be truly unmet, then I am all for removing Obama from office. Until then, I do not much care for the constant call by hypocritical conservatives for Obama's impeachment. I have gotten a bunch of emails, invitations, and solicitations to join internet groups, message boards, social networking groups, and messages from those who are calling for impeachment or are already planning for it. This makes us no better than the whack job liberals who constantly called for George Bush's impeachment and now for his arrest and prosecution.

Impeachment is akin to the indictment for a crime. Impeachment itself is NOT removal from office. A conviction after impeachment will result in removal from office. I am not into removing someone from office with whom I happen to disagree strongly and certainly not for unconstitutional reasons.

Rest assured, however, if Barack Obama commits acts consistent with a constitutional reason for removal from office, as did Bill Clinton, then I will be all for the clarion call and will be sounding it myself.

If you want to impeach someone, start with Hillary Clinton, who was not eligible to become Secretary of State under Article I section 6 of the US Constitution.

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

Hillary voted for a pay increase for the Secretary of State. Therefore, she is not eligible to receive the benefit of its salary. This is not just a political stance as some boneheads have alleged. It is the intent of the writers of the Constitution to prohibit the very thing that is happening. A legislator assented to raise the pay for a job that she herself was going to end up taking. The clause does not say that if the salary is lessened that she is then eligible. Law is law.

I agree with Obama on this one, too.

According to Yahoo news:

Barack Obama told House Democrats on Tuesday that as president he would order his attorney general to scour White House executive orders and expunge any that "trample on liberty," several lawmakers said.

Presidents, as head of the executive branch of government, issue such orders to direct operations of executive branch agencies, like the Justice Department and the CIA.

I have said for years that I was wanting a President to go through all the executive orders issued by previous administrations and get rid of the ones that I disagreed with or wanted to change. Actually, to be more accurate, I feel that every last executive order should be nullified upon the leaving of the previous administration. There is no way feasible that the executive branch should be held to the standards laid down by a President from 30 years ago. Why should choices made by Jimmy Carter dictate how George W. Bush runs his administration? If an executive officer made the order, and executive officer can rescind the order.

I have no problem with the chief executive officer making administration policy. I do have a problem with using executive orders in place of law. For instance, Bush's order on bass fishing regulation (cited in the article) is not something a POTUS should be deciding. Whether the CIA is allowed to perform certain sorts of operations, however, is within the jurisdiction of the head of the executive branch.

Of course I expect someone like Obama to only keep liberally bending orders in place, but he does have the concept of eliminating those orders that do not coincide with his goals and purposes.

The only choice left

The NC Constitution Party may be a bunch of whining babies, but I do side quite heavily with the national platform. Chuck Baldwin is a familiar name to people in radio and in evangelical Christendom. He is the only sane choice left in the upcoming election. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate in a fledgling Republican Party. It can happen again. It is not likely, but it can happen.

I ran across this...Obama for Prez!

The ONLY conservative choice

He is the only conservative left in the race and was the ONLY one that ever WAS in the race.