Republicans often provide us with a sense of déjà vu, as they resort to draconian practices in ways that we have seen before. Whatever Bill Clinton’s shortcomings, he did nothing worthy of impeachment, such as starting lengthily wars of aggression, torture, or using the federal bureaucracy in an attempt to attain a permanent Republican regime at taxpayer expense. Nevertheless, they did impeach Clinton, just to gridlock the government and prevent him from achieving more of his objectives. That time may well come again.
Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist has long held a tight grip on the marionette strings of the GOP. Wielding undue influence as the head of the Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist ensures that Republican lawmakers sign his anti-tax pledge and threatens them with electoral defeat should they even think of deviating from it. Norquist has marked a successful few years, killing the deficit super committee agreement, batting down a tax increase on millionaires, and, of course, ensuring the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Pleased with his headway, Norquist is now mapping out how he can ensure further anti-tax victories by securing Republican majorities. In an interview with the National Journal, he mused that a GOP mandate would obviously enact an extension of the Bush tax cuts, work to maintain a repatriation holiday for corporate profits, and even pass House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan that jeopardizes Medicare. But when asked what Republicans should do if faced with a Democratic majority that won’t keep the tax cuts, Norquist had a simple answer: “impeach” Obama [Propaganda delinked]… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
Norquist and his Republican toadies could care less that Obama has done nothing worthy of impeachment, save offending their racism by committing the heinous crime of being elected while black.
Note that every priority Norquist listed benefits the 1% at YOUR expense. Norquist knows that Democrats will represent YOU, because otherwise, there is no need for the threat.
31 Responses to “Impeach Obama?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
So! Grover wants to impeach the President. I wonder what his reaction would be if, perhaps one of his homophobic “candidates” canvassed him on his “orientation” before signing the pledge, “not to raise taxes?” I’m just say’n………..
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/grover_norquist_joins_goproud.html
Johnny, I disagree here. Although so much else about him is horrid, he’s all about fiscal policy. He is not one of the ones who feign false morality, like so many Republican hypocrites. Since he is not condemning others over sexual issues, his orientation is his own business,
His unbridled arrogance is only matched by the newt – two of a kind, except “nor” has more power and his 1% friends have more money! Everybody kisses “nor’s” whatever!
He is definitely the fiscal GOPope.
Agree, Nameless. I was not concerned that they could do it. What set me off was his audacity.
Grover should be prosecuted for inciting treason against the United States of America. The RepublicanTs who sign his pledge should also be prosecuted for treason for violating their oath to our country.
A brief history of the oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” The Civil War led President Lincoln to develop an expanded oath for all federal civilian employees (April 1861). That July, when Congress reconvened, “members echoed the president’s action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.” (cite)
The current oath was enacted in 1884: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. “
I have maintained for years that anyone who signs Norquist’s no-tax pledge is in direct violation of that oath.
Guess what happens to any civil servant who has the temerity to actually uphold that oath? He/she is branded “stupid and lazy,” railroaded out of Civil Service, and ostracized from her/his chosen profession for life. No one must ever challenge any contractor who calls himself an “entrepreneur”; that is the magic buzzword. After all, it’s the only polysyllable the Publicans know, even though they don’t know its origin.
Note to “hearing examiner” Toby Sherwood: In a star chamber, contempt is not an offense but a civic duty.
Patty, totally agree with you but I think it would have to be for ‘sedition’ if I recall TC correctly — sedition for inciting an uprising against own government, and treason for acts against own government on behalf of a foreign enemy. In any case the SOB needs to go away, along with all his little droid minions, for a very long time to a secluded, dark prison cell never to see the light of day again.
I agree with all the above, except that Lynn is correct. It is sedition, not treason. The constitution defines treason as fighting for an enemy or giving aid and comfort to an enemy during time of war. Technically, no state of war can exist until Congress declares War, so any charge of Treason since the end of WWII is unconstitutional.
Norquist is unpatriotic and extreme. The son of a bitching rich trust-funder should be locked up in solitary confinement for 23 1/2 hours every day for the next 10 years for his anti-government, anti-worker, anti-poor stances. The jerk is heartless and soulless, and his anti-government anti-tax pledge should be ripped up and burned by all legislators who are truly debt-conscious. He is a traitor to all of the 99%!
Seditionist. 🙂
Seems to me it is Norquist who may be guilty of Treason ; Plotting to overthrow the Constitution , blackmailing members of Congress to overthrow their oath of office , by threatening them ? —
Sedition, not treason., See above.
This goes beyond free speech and makes these pronouncements with impunity. Obviously he, like J. Edgar Hoover, must have some blackmail leverage on his GOP buddies. Sounds like a black-bag operation to obtain this creep’s black book might be in order to move some of the GOP from the right to the left.
Phil, he has the backing of so many banksters and corporate criminals that the power he wields is financial. H can cut off a politician’s funding and has.
For years now, there has been a group wanting to impeach Bush starting when he was in office. That too has been left by the wayside now that he is out of office. The reason at the time was for his falsehoods on WMDs and our subsequent invasion in Iraq.If an invasion without good reasons has not come up before Congress, so what do they have that is much worse than that? It’s a lot of flack just hear themselves and to keep people “scared” all the time in order to win them over to their side.
Regina, I agree. The list of impeachable offenses by Bush was long, both foreign and domestic,
He is a terrorist, plain and simple.
Agree!
First things first get your facts straight. Clinton put his hand on a bible and swore in a court of law that he would tell the truth and then he lied multiple times under oath. That is called perjury and it is a felony. (read high crimes and misdemeanors). Two he conspired with others to lie under oath, that too is a felony. He was reprimanded by a federal judge and lost his law license over it. He should have been thrown out of office and done 3 to 5 years because of it. These are facts and I am sorry if they don’t fit the version of history that you choose to remember but such is life.
If Bush or Obama had done this I would want the same punishment but to my knowledge neither of them have come close to this level of treachery. But who knows Obama has at least one more year to try.
Treachery, Mike? Get real!
There is a tradition among southern men that goes back well over 100 years. According to their definition of sex, it refers to intercourse only. In that way they could get a BJ without actually committing adultery. I don’t agree with their definition oe condone the practice, but when he said he did not have sex, he was accurate according to his own belief.
On the other hand, Bush lied to Congress to get is into war. He instituted torture. He used organs of the federal bureaucracy to perform Republican campaign activities at taxpayer expense. All are crimes and all are impeachable offenses.
My facts are straight. I’m sorry, but you do not get to make up your own facts.
I said many months ago, when I first heard of Norquist and his pledge, what I could not understand was how a Representative or Senator could take Norquist’s oath and the oath of office and not be in conflict of interest. I had not read the pledge and had only heard the oath of office during Presidential Inaugurations.
Here is how his pledge reads: “. . . whereby the signer promises to:
Whereas the oath of office reads:
The pledge as written does not appear to be at odds with the oath of office. However, in words and context, Norquist’s pledge is quite different. The Republican/Teabaggers have taken the pledge to mean not raise marginal income tax rates on corporations and the wealthy only, where Norquist’s pledge is to not raise marginal income tax rates on anyone. And of course, the middle and working classes have few deductions if any, where the wealthy and corporations do.
But then, if you read the preamble to the Constitution, it says:
In signing the Norquist pledge in the context that it has been taken by the Republican/Teabaggers, it appears to contradict the oath of office taken by all legislators in that
Do I agree with Norquist and his attempt to build a kingdom for himself — No! Do I believe there is an inherent conflict between his pledge and the oath of office — Yes! I would agree with many who have called this seditious (although many use the term ‘treason’).
Norquist may very well be full of bluster when he says “Impeach Obama!” and gives no reason for the call. But I wouldn’t count on it. At the very least, such a call will distract Congress from the running the country. To me, such a call would be analogous to what the courts call a ‘frivolous and vexatious law suit’ and at the very least, Norquist should have to pay costs.
Lynn, I fully agree. Superior analysis.
Impeach Obama ? ! Did He Cheat on his Wife’s , No That Was Newt,, Did His Company Rob Medicare,, NO That Was Mitt,,,Is He Predjudice ,, No Thats Ron Paul,,, Is He Trying To Get Rid Of Social Security,, NO Thats Santorum ,,,, I Guess The Pukes Must Just Impeach EACH OTHER !! That Makes More sense
What makes more sense is to make them all unimpeachable through unemployment. 🙂
as a repug he must have some illegal, immoral, and hypocritical past. just bring his past to the surface and by November he should be toast. it is time to bring this pimple on society to the surface and destroy him as he has so many other lives. hope there is a way.
Welcome Consuelo! 🙂
I would not go after him on a morality issue, because he does not come across like he is holier than the rest of us. Otherwise, I’m with you!
The Audacity of Hope is Barack Obama’s call for a new kind of politics—a politics that builds upon those shared understandings that pull us together.
The Audacity of Norquist is one the right nuts like Newt just might do just that Impeach Obama just becuse he refuses to be apart of reality.
I know, but it took too long for Obama to realize that nothing he could do could get Republicans to negotiate in good faith.