You know what’s a terrible idea? Impeachment

Two presidents in the history of the American Republic have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both would later be acquitted by the Senate. A third, Richard Nixon, would face impeachment charges but resign instead. No president has ever been removed from office through impeachment proceedings.

So what makes anyone think Barack Obama will be the first?

The most recent talk of impeachment, and one presumes subsequent conviction, seems to have started when Sarah Palin called for action in a Breitbart column. She writes, in part:

President Obama’s rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It’s not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along, and, mark my words, will next meddle in the U.S. Court System with appointments that will forever change the basic interpretation of our Constitution’s role in protecting our rights.

It’s not that her diagnosis is wrong. It’s not. The Obama Administration ignores federal law when convenient. The Supreme Court has repeatedly and unanimously rejected the administration’s actions as unconstitutional. There’s little doubt the Constitution is used as anything other than toilet paper in this White House.

Rather, it’s Palin’s suggested course of action that’s so off-base:

It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.

The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored. If after all this he’s not impeachable, then no one is.

Then no one is. Because Barack Obama is not going to be impeached; not in the legal sense of mere indictment nor in the broader sense of actual removal from office. It’s not going to happen. Barring some Watergate-like revelation where both parties concede he has to go, it’s out of the question.

First of all, even if Republican leadership passed articles of impeachment, Democrats control the United States Senate. Even if Republicans win the chamber in November, conviction requires two-thirds majority. Find me 67 Senators to remove Barack Obama from office in a chamber controlled by his own party, or even just barely controlled by the opposition.

So impeaching him is a futile endeavor. You’re not going to remove the man from office.

What you may very well end up doing, however, is scaring low-information voters and progressive activists into turning out in November. Democrats will warn that Republicans will use a Senate majority to remove America’s first black president, and his supporters will turn out to protect him. At the very least you end up alienating moderate voters who might otherwise support the Republican challenger.

Can we not? Can we not give Democrats a driving purpose to turn out in a midterm election year? Can we not turn off moderate and independent voters who might otherwise support our guy? Can we not risk remaining in the Senate minority in pursuit of a futile endeavor? Can we be smart politically for once? Here’s the end result of an impeachment push: Barack Obama is still president and Harry Reid remains Senate Majority Leader. What a victory.

Not convinced yet? Here’s food for thought: President Biden. There’s a concept that should scare even Mrs. Biden.

Finally: Justin Bieber Criminally Charged

Justin Bieber has been criminally charged in a vandalism case involving the egging of his neighbor’s house. He will be formally charged arraigned today on a charge of misdemeanor vandalism.

There’s a joke to be made about the criminal nature of his music, but on a serious note Bieber has been getting away with violent behavior for a while. Finally he’ll face charges.

Unfortunately, we all know how this ends. He pleads, gets a small fine and maybe some community service, and he brags to his friends that he beat the system. Nothing more than a speed bump, no lesson learned.

Video: Harry Reid Thinks Clarence Thomas is White

There’s no way Harry Reid actually thinks Clarence Thomas is white. Harry Reid does, however, aim these lines at riling-up the low-information voters in a mid-term year. He counts on them not actually knowing who sits on the Supreme Court, and that’s probably a safe assumption.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) vowed on Tuesday to take action this month to try to combat the recent “Hobby Lobby” ruling from the Supreme Court. In his remarks he referred to the decision and decried the “five white men” who rendered it.

“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determine by virtue of five white men,” Reid said. “This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous and we are going to do something about it. People are going to have to walk down here and vote.

Funny story: 3 of the 4 liberal justices who dissented are also white. The other justice is a white Hispanic. Thomas, a conservative, is the only black justice on the court.

Hillary: You know, we totally struggled to get a mortgage

She’s still digging.

“You recently described your financial situation during the presidency of your husband Bill Clinton as dead broke,” says Der Spiegel.

“Well, when we came out of the White House, we were deeply in debt because of all the legal bills that we owed because of the relentless persecution of my husband and myself, and he had to work unbelievably hard to pay off every single penny of every debt we owed. And we did,” Clinton responds.

The magazine posits, “Today, you are multimillionaires. Your husband has earned $104 million with his speeches since 2001.”

To which the former secretary of state responds, “We are very grateful for where we are today. But if you were to go back and look at the amount of money that we owed, we couldn’t even get a mortgage on a house by ourselves. In our system he had to make double what he needed in order just to pay off the debt, and then to finance a house and continue to pay for our daughter’s education.

Chelsea attended Stanford, Oxford, and then Columbia. The Clintons average six-figures per speech. Hillary’s book advance was $8 million. From 2001 to 2007, the years immediately after the White House, the Clintons reported $108 million earned and $33 million in taxes paid.

This is Clinton’s latest failed attempt to address the “issue” of her wealth — an issue only because Democrats have spent years attacking the idea of wealth as evil. Hillary, a certified member of the 1%, is trying her best to play the “I’m just like you!” card, but the numbers just don’t add up.

“Public Service”: The Unbelievable Salary and Benefits for One School Superintendent

A school district in California has fired its superintendent after it was discovered he was making $663,000 per year with a guaranteed 9% annual raise.

Now-former Superintendent Jose Fernandez of the Centinela Valley school district was placed on leave back in March when reports of his excessive pay first surfaced.

Fernandez further secured a $910,000 low-interest loan from the district to buy a home. In an attempt to save his job, Fernandez offered to return his raise and the $14,500 bonus he received in 2013.

The final vote to terminate the newly-funemployed superintendent was 5-0. If it is determined he was fired without cause, the district could be on the hook contractually for $500,000 in severance pay.

Top Obama Official Blasts Israel, Refers to “Occupation”, Questions Peace Commitment

A top US administration official speaking in Tel Aviv yesterday blasted Israel, referring to her “occupation” and questioning her commitment to peace. He further praised Palestinian leadership.

In an unusually harsh major foreign policy address, Philip Gordon, a special assistant to US President Barack Obama and the White House coordinator for the Middle East, appealed to Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make the compromises needed to reach a permanent peace agreement. Jerusalem “should not take for granted the opportunity to negotiate” such a treaty with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who has proven to be a reliable partner, Gordon said.

“Israel confronts an undeniable reality: It cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely. Doing so is not only wrong but a recipe for resentment and recurring instability,” Gordon said. “It will embolden extremists on both sides, tear at Israel’s democratic fabric and feed mutual dehumanization.”…

In his 25-minute speech – which marked the first time a senior White House official had directly addressed the Israeli people since Obama’s March 2013 speech in Jerusalem — Gordon rejected any alternatives to the two-state solution. He called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resume peace talks with the PA, suggesting that Abbas is the best Palestinian leader Jerusalem could hope for. “Israel should not take for granted the opportunity to negotiate such a peace with Abbas, who has shown time and again that he’s committed to non-violence and co-existence and cooperation with Israel.

The event at which Gordon was speaking was interrupted today when rockets launched from Palestinian territory entered into airspace over Tel Aviv. Luckily, Israel’s Iron Dome rocket defense system was functioning. It was just the latest rocket attack by terrorists operating on Palestinian soil.

Last week, the bodies of three Israeli teenagers kidnapped in June were found by Israeli authorities. They had been shot to death. One boy was also an American citizen. The oldest was 19-years-old. It is believed Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas was behind the murders. Hamas also holds a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. But sure, let’s attack Israel for not rushing into an agreement with the people trying to destroy them.

The Great American Extremely Wealthy Political Dynasty Smackdown of 2014

On one side you have a former Massachusetts Governor and son of a late Michigan governor and business giant, worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The challenger: A former Secretary of State and wife of a former President of the United States, who rakes in six-figures per speaking engagement and is worth a probable tens of millions of dollars.

Loser pays the winner’s yacht taxes.

It’s the Great American Extremely Wealthy Political Dynasty Smackdown we all hoped for. Although may I suggest that you’ve screwed up when your best available pushback is, “Sure I’m rich, but I’m not Mitt Romney rich”.

Top US General: Southern Border Crisis is Existential Threat

Turns out leaving your southern border largely unprotected is a national security threat. I know, I’m shocked too. If only someone had been saying this for many, many, many years. But then that person would almost surely be a racist.

Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commander of U.S. Southern Command, has asked Congress this year for more money, drones and ships for his mission – a request unlikely to be met. Since October, an influx of nearly 100,000 migrants has made the dangerous journey north from Latin America to the United States border. Most are children, and three-quarters of the unaccompanied minors have traveled thousands of miles from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

“In comparison to other global threats, the near collapse of societies in the hemisphere with the associated drug and [undocumented immigrant] flow are frequently viewed to be of low importance,” Kelly told Defense One. “Many argue these threats are not existential and do not challenge our national security. I disagree.”

In spring hearings before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, Kelly said that budgets cuts are “severely degrading” the military’s ability to defend southern approaches to the U.S border. Last year, he said, his task force was unable to act on nearly 75 percent of illicit trafficking events. “I simply sit and watch it go by,” he said. But the potential threats are even greater. Kelly warned that neglect has created vulnerabilities that can be exploited by terrorist groups, describing a “crime-terror convergence” already seen in Lebanese Hezbollah’s involvement in the region.

Talk of Hezbollah exploiting weak border security has been around for years. Those who brought it up previously were alarmists. Those who warned of the open southern border being a national security threat were labeled nativists and compared to the Soviets building the Berlin Wall. And Democrats were hardly the sole offenders.

Now the massive problem is staring us in the face. Now top leaders and even pro-amnesty Democrats are recognizing we have a serious issue. And now the United States government will act out of panic because we waited so long to deal with an entirely predictable crisis. Hat tip to Hot Air for the story.

Depressing Quote of the Day

In the context of reforms underway in Ukraine post-revolution:

Yet each time this happened in the past, all they really did was change the players… not the game. They just ended up with a different set of criminals in charge.

This time around there seems to be serious effort to at least change the rules.

Many are talking about major revisions to the Constitution (leading one local journalist to ask– “Why don’t we use the American Constitution? It was written by really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and they’re not using it anymore…”)


Putin whines to America: I want better treatment

That’s nice. You know what I want? Ukraine to have Crimea back. We all want things we’ll never get.

MOSCOW (Reuters) – President Vladimir Putin called for an improvement in ties between Russia and the United States on Friday in an Independence Day message to Barack Obama, urging Washington to treat Moscow as an equal partner.

“The head of the Russian state expressed hope that … ties between the two countries will develop successfully on the basis of pragmatism and equality despite difficulties and disagreements,” the Kremlin said in a statement, outlining a telegram sent to Obama on the July 4 holiday.

“Vladimir Putin also highlighted that Russia and the United States, as countries carrying exceptional responsibility for safeguarding international stability and security, should cooperate not only in the interests of their own nations but also the whole world.”

Invading and annexing neighboring countries is in direct conflict with all of those stated goals.

Moscow thinks the Obama Administration is stupid, and sadly Moscow may be right. Don’t be surprised at all if the administration interprets this bullcrap as an authentic peace offering. We’re talking about the same people who were caught off-guard by Russia’s invasion of Crimea because, hey, Vladimir Putin promised he wouldn’t.

Russia wants, or rather demands, a respect that doesn’t come with destabilizing peaceful neighbors and then using the opportunity to steal regions. There isn’t much Washington can do to directly stop Moscow’s aggression, but we sure as hell shouldn’t reward it with “equality” and “respect” in our dealings.