My photo
I am retired from government, law enforcement, politics and all other pointless endeavors. I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired.

Thursday, July 24, 2014


There is some nonsense going around about impeaching President Obama.  If I were one of the president’s advisors and backers, I’d encourage it.  But I’m not.  I’m a conservative.  I dislike self-inflicted wounds among people with whom I generally agree. 

Of course the President does deserve to be impeached.  But that’s hardly the point.  Although we may more than suspect his mentality and motives, he hasn’t committed a crime as such.  He could be impeached because he refuses to perform critical constitutional functions, while claiming powers clearly not his.  But this would be a ponderous case, involving constitutional interpretation and mountainous documentation the President’s people will never produce. His obvious malice toward Caucasians is another matter, difficult to prosecute in the context of impeachment.  A number of those sitting in the House of Representatives share his distaste for our pale folks.  So that’s a difficult sell.

No, we have entirely selfish reasons to avoid the temptation to lash out at this president via impeachment. 

Impeachment is a path away from the public’s increased understanding of the president’s manifold failures and incapacities.  Impeachment becomes the gleaming, fascinating object in the room, rather than the actual failures of this president and his party.  To impeach Obama is to hand our fate over to a million lawyers and their world of legal detail and stratagems.  It would be the usual circus of quibbles and misdirection with very uncertain results. 

This brings to mind the last time we tried this.  I deliberately placed myself in very public places to witness public reaction to the Clinton hearings.  In my naiveté I thought the public would be disgusted by Clinton’s barnyard sexual appetites and the forensic evidence of same.  I was wrong.  It was clear that the majority resented this information thrust on them, at least as much as they resented the behavior itself.  The stains on Monica’s dress just didn’t go well with their burgers and fries.  The GOP embroiled them in an ugly fight and they didn’t appreciate it.

I suspect something similar would happen with Obama hearings.  His supporters in the media would help the public see the whole business as a pseudo-racist witch hunt to depose our first black president. 

No, the wise course of action is to keep Obama around and prosper by his endless wrong-headed, arrogant, semi-legal administration.  For the time remaining, he will bestow one damaging blow to the Democrat coalition after another. 

By openly encouraging the inflow of illegal aliens he actually gets the majority population of this country to see how they are betrayed. Recent weeks have seen protests by African Americans over their displacement by cheap, foreign interlopers, who displace them on the job and in their neighborhoods.  This catches the Democrat Party in a pincer movement, as the Hispanics who are also a large part of their base are still unsatisfied at the rate of Hispanicization of our country.

The President can be counted on to support Israel more and more grudgingly.  He just cut off American passenger service to Israeli airspace.   This removal of the velvet gloves when it comes to Israel fits in well with Obamas moral compass.  He sees Palestinians as people of color to be protected.  It will grow worse from a Jewish and Israeli point of view as time goes on.  The Democrat party gets a very large percentage of its funding from Jewish sources.  Obama no longer cares. He is not running.

The President continues to advance an internationalist foreign policy that inserts our national prestige into every midget wrestling contest on the globe.  The whole world sees him as a poltroon who picks rhetorical fights that he lacks the will to prosecute.  For a supposedly brilliant man, he doesn’t seem to have the wit to see the mismatch between his high-flown pronouncements and his practical capacity.  The public doesn’t like seeing our president as an international joke.   

Obama seems to have no economic education at all.  That’s just judging by his record.  His academic records are sealed. He issues cooked numbers beyond the gift of Baron von Munchhausen, and he expects all to believe them. He thinks debt doesn’t matter but solar subsidies do. He can be counted on to keep the economy down and crawling in the wrong direction.  At some point people with some real money to lose are going to walk away and leave his party dry.

The President’s loyalty to his Attorney General makes him look biased as it is.  Nothing the Attorney General or Homeland Security Director says is believed.  They both act as the President’s henchmen in increasingly unpopular policies.  The Presidents’ signal achievement, Obama Care, is melting away under the heat of judicial review.  It will discomfit a great many voters before 2016.  The poor that it’s designed to help, his party already has.

So why try to get rid of him when we can only profit from him for the next two years?  Why interfere with his systematic dismantling of that coalition of grasping fringe groups that makes up his party?  We gain adherents every time he goes golfing while events pass him by.  Every time his favorite appointees appear before Congress, he and his party look worse in the eyes of the public. 

There is every chance that the economy, such as it is, will tank again before he leaves. He doesn’t seem inclined to start another counterproductive war, but we can be sure of his bungling foreign policy in the time remaining to him.   He will make sure that the last blue collar American still voting “D” will have leave. 

We may get an historic chance to turn our country around, but only if conservatives prepare for 2016.  They can do this by making a case that our President will only help us build. What more can we want?


  1. This is a really good, sound piece of thinking, both legally and politically, and moreover fills the hole between the Left which of course would regard impeachment of Obama over anything as invalid racism and the hysterical Right. And, more importantly even, it at least *discusses* the issue from the standpoint of the moderate but firm Right, which raises an idea.

    That is, from its very inception just about the only outlet that the "moderate but firm Right" had on the net was The American Conservative website.

    Except that ... in innumerable ways, in addition to just simply some really amateur-level thinking on the part of some of its editors/contributors, that outlet is just about destroyed. Having been founded in essence in reaction to Bush II's brand of "conservatism," it seems to have been captured and that then taken overboard as regards all sorts of issue, to the point where one can count on the seeing the only mentions of traditional conservatism or libertarianism as being mocked.

    Further, all this seems to be being done in a deceptive, unfair manner. Mimicking the Left, for instance, it just stoutly refuses to address some issues at all (or until it can find a way to attack the conservative position about same from some non-conservative perspective); as Thom Meehan has noted it seems filled with youngsters' voices enamored with faddish labels or ideas who then know only to trash those with opposing viewpoints, and perhaps worst of all it seems to be trying to preserve itself via censoring out the commentary that takes issue with it.

    As a consequence it sure can seem to attract a diminished number of comments, and certainly I've noticed the absence of what were long-time readers. (Such as myself who was a charter subscriber to TAC, and who now only drops in once in awhile to see what further damage the present owner/operators are doing to the thing.)

    Hence, the idea: Turn this site *openly* into an alternative TAC, Thom. Rename it something like ... "The REAL American Conservative," and regularly allow yourself and contributors and commentators to openly take off from TAC's pieces as subjects for discussion. And openly take off from those conservative issues TAC clearly *won't* talk about.

    I suspect there's lots of driftless refugees from TAC, and others still there but not at all happy with the way it is running now. Moreover I suspect I see a good number of actual former *contributors* to TAC now looking for other outlets to publish their material, and more of them may exist as well. Already it can be seen, for instance, that any number of visitors here have indeed just come *from* viewing TAC's blog, obviously looking for some relief.

    Do it, Thom. Unz has left, they clearly only publish Buchanan now holding their (upturned) noses but knowing he's such a draw, and you may well be able to even get Buchanan and some of the old, good TAC contributors here, such as Giraldi and McConnell.

    The only thing I would say—more as a moderate libertarian than what a "traditional conservative" might be, but still respectful of the latter—is don't fall into that which so puts people off blogs today. Like Unz's site, don't censor unless it's just blatantly necessary, and *do* let your authors and commentators have to contend with the rough and tumble of argument. And above all be fair: It's *interesting* to see different perspectives, and one thing TAC did right at first was to allow non-traditional conservative pieces and comments which I think attracted people from the Left even who admired that fairness and openness. It's such a rare thing today in blogs and such, surprise with such openness. It alone changes minds as to who is really open-minded and fair and reasonable and who are the real intellectual thugs.

    Go for it Thom. Word will get around pretty quick to TAC readers I suspect and you'll get a good core of regular readers I believe.The best kind. And who knows where it will go from there?

    1. Thanks for your kind views of my site. I'm also thankful for your many encouraging remarks over the years on various comment sections. As I told an editor on another site, I have a fan base of one - you.

      I'm not postured to do what you want. Fielding a site like TAC takes money and that means backers. I am concentrating on writing for other sites such as VDARE and Unz, perhaps TAKImag. in the future. I should have a piece out on VDARE in the very near future. I'd rather be a writer than a proprietor/editor any day.

      I agree that some form of actual TAC would be a very good thing. If you know any millionaires who want to set one up let me know.

  2. Well Thom, maybe all it takes is for you to feel freer to take off from TAC's stuff and allow others to do so too, just as I see you have now taken off on some Dreher piece.

    (And indeed I find this piece addressing an Obama impeachment to be about the same: An issue—no matter how hot amongst conservative or Right-leaners—they won't touch with their "See no evil" theology as regards Obama. At least until they figure out what they think is a tricky way to do it.)

    In any event like I said there's a big hole existing now with TAC's descent into ... irrelevance, just like you noted earlier. And all it really needs for filling is some openness and fairness, and certainly not any lockstep agreement. For instance you noted my "fandom" of your pieces in the past and that's so even if you seem more of a traditional conservative and I'm very definitely a moderate libertarian. But what I think attracts people is just straightforward thinking and argument without what TAC is falling into which is trying to argue via ... the sneer. I.e., the sensibility that whoever disagrees is just oh so infra dig. Get rid of that alone—not to mention the censoring TAC is doing to save their pieces from the full criticisms they deserve, and I think people will come.

    In addition to this piece of yours concerning impeachment let me give you an example: There's currently two pieces up at TAC I think very much dissing a recent ruling that Obamacare can subsidize only state insurance exchanges and not the ones the feds have to set up if the states (as many have done) refused.

    The crux of the thing is that the actual words of the law do rather unambiguously state that it is the state exchanges that can be subsidized, with the counter argument being this was really just a drafting oversight, with the supposed intention of Obamacare being clear to want all the exchanges subsidized.

    Now, there's nothing wrong with arguing that the Court in question should honor that intent, if it indeed exists. But instead of course the nature of TAC's pieces is ... the sneer. Of *course* it should only be that way, they hold. Of *course* they imply that those bringing the suit and the judges finding the other way or nasty little conservative obstructionists.

    Not a word though for the very difficult and consequential question courts face in such circumstances. Instead it's just as if "oh it's an absolute trifling matter for a Court to just simply read a word into a law."

    (Not to mention the Court in question having addressed at length their "intent" argument and found it wanting.)

    Now of course it's hypocritical too, as almost certainly if some court were to read into some criminal law even one word that was absent and thereby make a whole new class of criminals out of their non-democratic, judicial air, boy they would be screaming.

    But not now and not here. Instead it's just ... the sneer.

    So that's the kind of thing TAC is delivering now, not to mention, incredibly enough in the age of Detroit and Chicago cheerleading in a big way to tax us ever more so as to give same to our big cities.

    And, I say again, it's leaving a huge hole. The neo-cons and corrupt Establishment Republicans have turned conservatism into something beyond pathetic, and now on the other side the one outlet formed to fight against it have gone so far over the edge that no matter what Obama does it's okay by them.

    At the very least Thom just ... keep it in mind. Maybe see if Giraldi or McConnell or Buchanan will let you run their stuff. And what about Kelley Vlahos? And ... all kinds of people whose names one could come up with. With perhaps the exception of TAC's non-interventionist tact many sure are strangers ideologically with TAC now it seems.

    1. Tom, I'm flattered that you think I can pull off what you are suggesting. Kelley Vlahos and the people you mention all get paid. When my stuff appears I get paid. In order to do as you suggest I'd have to be generating ad revenue, substantial ad revenue. If anything, fielding a blog such as this costs money in terms of opportunity costs. Doing this is a labor of love and I'm not complaining. I'm retired and have time and ego enough to do this.

      It's interesting, I used to have a revenue gadget on this blog. It disappeared at some point not long ago. I never bothered to ask what happened. That should give you some idea of how profitable an ordinary opinion blog is.

      If there are enough intelligent readers out there, someone will figure it out and create something for them. If someone wants to try something of a collaborative nature I'd be happy to give it a look. I'm flexible. But you must understand one thing. I spent most of my adult life in politics and government. Both of these rackets depend on underpaid/unpaid labor. At some point you have to understand that children's crusades are a gimmick perpetrated by the tiny uniform manufacturers association.

      I'm too old to serve yet again.