Why Having Two White Parents That Remain Together Through Life Is Sucky

The fact is, having one black parent is good enough to make Barack Obama America's first "black president."  So what that he didn't know his father?  So what that his father bedded and illegally wedded Barack's mother?  So what that his father's influence in his life is an after the fact construct for a book ghost written for a future president by a past domestic terrorist?  If a person of the general incompetence and sloth of Barack Obama had sought the presidency but had brought to it the pedigree of two Caucasian parents, Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee in 2008.  So, how is it that having a black father that one really never knew is better than having two Caucasian parents?

Because the guy with one black parent he never knew can get away with anything, because the danger is constantly present for his political opponents that confronting the man will be made to be the stuff of racial intimidation.

The Attorney General of the United States told us that, as to matters of race, we are a nation of cowards.  No.  Not being hyperbolic here, the words were "a nation of cowards."

Well, I suppose I think he's right.  We all knew the dangers associated with targeting a man with dark skin for public chastisement and political excoriation as soon as Clarence Thomas uttered the words "high tech lynching of a uppity black man."

So what else explains the refusal of John Boehner to institute impeachment proceedings against Obama?

Is it that Barack Obama has not committed acts justifying impeachment?

No.  Without effort, sitting here at my computer, I can identify a dozen or more grounds on which impeachment is justified.  Remember that among the key articles of impeachment against Richard M. Nixon was the abuse of using the IRS against political opponents.  This Administration's abuse of Tea Party and conservative organizations through the IRS is just the same kind of political abuse that warranted the article of impeachment against Nixon.  The naked criminality of destroying and "losing" the hard drives of seven involved IRS computers is self-evident.

Is it that the Republicans in the House would be committing electoral suicide in a year they had hoped to gain House seats, and perhaps control of the Senate?

Well now, that's entirely possible.  It is possible that by doing their constitutionally sworn duty they would be risking electoral success in November.  I guess I think that it is that very concern that proves the truth of Holder's race cowardice indictment of the Nation.  If the things done by Obama had been done by a man with two Caucasian parents, rather than just one, there is little doubt that severe consequences, likely impeachment, would have long since followed.

The thing is, and I do not know the answer to this question, if the standing of the Congress is so very low while it has done so very little to protect this Nation from this Administration, will it cause further damage to impeach the President, or, instead, will impeachment actions by the House lead the People to rise in hope that this long national nightmare is over?

We won't know.

As much as Obama likely despises Clarence Thomas because of the Justice's principled constitutional conservatism, there's little doubt in my mind that the House would have to be prepared to deal with an echo of Thomas' "high tech lynching of an uppity black man" allegation.  And, that, my friends, is why I think that Holder, like a broken clock, is proved right.

No principled constitutionalist of my ken thinks that this President cannot be properly made the subject of Articles of Impeachment.  Without regard to the wisdom of any particular effort at impeachment, there is no question that the House has the power to impeach, a power sufficiently broad that it might impeach a President for putting mayo on a Reuben.  So we are left to the COWARDICE of the Republicans in the House, who, for fear that they might be portrayed as conducting a "high tech lynching" of Obama, are refusing to do their duty.

Next Time, Boehner, Put the Potato in Front!

There's a somewhat colorful joke involving two guys exchanging ideas on picking up women at the beach:

The more successful fellow told the other that one of his secrets was to put a good sized sweet potato in his Speedo and then strolling the beach.  Thinking it sounded like a plausible plan, the second fellow did just that.  After walking the beach for an hour and meeting with nothing but raucous laughter or looks of disgust, he returned to where he and his friend had set up on the beach.  He told his buddy how disappointed he was that this seemingly fool proof method of garnering the gals had such a major glitch.  His buddy retorted, next time, put the sweet potato in the FRONT of your swimsuit!

If you are offended, you've probably moved on.

If you aren't, then perhaps you've noticed that the person with "an artificially inflated masculinity" just might be the Republican House leadership.  They've organized the Benghazi Select Committee AND they've held Lois Lerner, IRS corruptician, in contempt.  These stunningly, seemingly, forceful actions they took in a matter of hours of each other.  But watch out where the sweet potato goes!

Congress demanded Lois Lerner's testimony.  Lerner had waived her privilege against self-incrimination when she took a testimonial oath in a hearing before Congress, offered an opening statement in which she denied wrong doing AND THEN asserted her right against self-incrimination.  Lerner failed and refused to testify.  Because she disobeyed a Congressional subpoena to testify, the House voted to hold her in contempt.

By itself, it may seem of small moment that the Congress held her in contempt.  It MAY SEEM that this is just some sort of honorific that belongs to a select few (former) government officials that occasionally find themselves between the Devil of Presidential directives and the Deep Blue Sea of Congressional commands.  And, as it turns out, it actually MIGHT JUST BE of small moment ... unless the next steps are taken.

So what are the next steps?

Two avenues of action follow the failure and refusal to answer questions of Congress. 

First, such willful failure CAN be prosecuted as a misdemeanor under federal law.  Conviction can result in fines and imprisonment.  But such a prosecution would take place under the direction of the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who, of course, answers to the Attorney General, Eric Holder.  So it remains to be seen whether Holder will allow, let alone require, the US Attorney in Washington, DC, to prosecute Lerner.  The likelihood that Holder will authorize such a prosecution, with its likely production of embarrassing exposures of the Obama administration’s political abuses by the IRS, seems quite small.

Second, Congress has inherent authority to enforce its subpoenas and, in execution of that authority, the Speaker of the House can order the Sergeant at Arms of the House to accomplish the physical arrest of Lois Lerner ANYWHERE in the United States, and her incarceration in House facilities in the Capitol building.  This latter approach might strike some harshly.  After all, we are accustomed to the arrest and investigation process to be entrusted to law-enforcement personnel, not law-enactment personnel.  Still, the precedent exists, and a House that would not be further diminished in stature must look to maintaining its powers and prerogatives, including the power to compel testimony in furtherance of the House’s constitutional duties.

Now we can sit back and watch as, by turns, Holder and Boehner jockey for position as least mindful of the House’s judgment that Lois Lerner deliberately committed contempt of the Congress.  Don’t expect much from Holder, he’s got to plug holes in the Obama Ship of State, not drill new ones.  And be surprised at any positive step from Boehner because he is from the Limp Noodle Wing of the GOP.

The Next Constitutional Crisis Has Arrived ... Did You Notice?

The Nation has faced constitutional crises before.  It faces another now.  The President of the United States has taken a course under which the Executive will predominate over the Legislative and Judicial. 

The last serious constitutional crisis occurred when FDR threatened to "pack the Court," as a means of changing the outcome of the Supreme Court's decisions on the socialist recovery programs pushed by FDR and enacted by Congress.  There, the Court may well have decided deliberately to give ground rather than allow FDR to destroy the Court.  In any event, once FDR's plan was made known, the Court suddenly found a new philosophy of judicial decision-making that gave it the way to approve previously unconstitutional legislative approaches.

In the current crisis, Obama has donned a crown, and feigns -- perhaps believes himself to be -- a king.  He ignores the Constitution.  He has done this by appointing persons required by law to be approved by Congress using his recess appointment power.  But three federal courts have all held that the recess appointment power is narrow, and only allows such appointments in very limited circumstances, none of which obtain in the case of Obama's illegal appointments.  On top of that, having been adjudged unlawful appointments, the National Labor Relations Board has continued to conduct its business as though it had a quorum to do business and authority. 

King Obama then decides, without statutory authority to do so, that the employer mandate will not be enforced for a year following its effective date, essentially rendering that provision nugatory.  His Majesty then announced that he would VETO legislation authorizing him to suspend the employer mandate if Congress passed it.  Thus, the King asserts an Executive power to suspend the effect of laws -- doing so unlawfully as a renegade -- and directly rejects the curative enactment that Congress offers.

Now, Prince Eric of DOJ (the Attorney General of the United States), undoubtedly in service of King Barry's will, has decided that he will enforce a law struck down by the United States Supreme Court, a section of the Voting Rights Act.  At the end of the recent Court Term, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case and, as part of its ruling, struck down part of the Voting Rights Act requiring States to obtain pre-clearance from the Department of Justice or a court for changes to laws affecting the exercise of the elective franchise.  AFTER the decision, Prince Eric the Holder has announced that he will force Texas to comply with the judicially invalidated law.

Our Nation's path is marked with moments that were freighted with tension, danger to national unity, and searing disharmony.  How the States, the People, and the federal government manage those moments frames our futures.  Just as Dred Scott framed the Civil War.  Just as the Civil War and Lincoln's assassination framed the Reconstruction.  Just as the Court packing plan framed our national dalliance with socialism.

So how will we frame our future in response to King Obama and Prince Eric's threatening hegemony?