Obama getting ripped in the “threads”

January 16, 2012

The meter's in the red and Obama's doubling down

One of the more interesting facets of doing this gig is to take the “pulse” of the comment threads that spring up in response to the storeis published by the myriad of online only political websites and the online presence of the major print papers across the country.

If there is one thing I’ve noticed since the summer of 2010 is that the “tone” of those threads has turned decidedly anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, and anti-Obama with an ever increasing “pulse” rate. What’s even more noticeable is the sheer number of “unique” commenters that weigh in against Obama and the left’s policies.

No matter the site, the pattern is solidifying. Dozens and sometimes hundreds of individual commenters espousing their disdain for Dear Leader and his minions (Holder, Pelosi, Reid, etc…) with one to two liberals going after as many individual commenters as they can in support of Dear Leader and his minions. (Basically, think of a thread with 100 comments total. Of that total there are 60 comments “against” Obama, and 40 comments “for” Obama”. BUT the problem facing him and the Democrats today is that those 40 comments “for” came from only two to three constant defenders(like the EC here in Joplin) while 50 of the 60 comments “against” come from truly 50 unique people from across the country expressing their displeasure to that one and only one article.)

While it can’t be measured in a statistically significant manner or formulated in a scientific theory it is, at least in this grumpy ol pundit’s opinion, a sign of not good things on the horizon this November.

The commentary is more pointed, more direct and more absolutely against anything “liberal” or “left” than I’ve ever seen on the web. And I’ve been on this thing they call the world wide web since the beginning when I was logging into the old bulletin board systems from a Commodore 64. (Don’t try to understand it, it’s a geek thing)

The bottom line is that for all the posturing and pompacity coming from Obama and the DNC these days they have to know what the Corner knows: That the mood of the majority of the country right now is decidedly anti-liberal and anti-Obama.

A sample of the depth of such feelings is shown in the comment below from someon posting as “streekyd”. And before all you local village idiots accuse me of pulling it from a “right wing hate site” it comes from none other than a Washington Post political thread. (Note to our local dwainbwains: the “discourse” in these national forums is not of the “civil, say only nice things about the publisher” that you’re used to. It gets down and dirty, it goes for the jugular, no censorhip is exorcised and if you can’t take the heat you’re definitely kicked out of the kitchen.)

The Corner makes no assertion to the truthfulness or validity of the points listed below. While I must admit that I’ve either heard of or am aware of each and every action listed in the “impeachables” below, the veracity of each I have not. They are reprinted solely for the purpose of showing the depth of what is out there and the passion of those posting.

For you perusing and thought, courtesy of “streekyd”:


3:52 PM CST

25 impeechable offenses:
1.Obama’s term as Board Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the mid-1990s where he and his colleague, unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, misused over $300 million in private donations meant to improve the education of minorities. Instead of spending the money on traditional learning programs, Obama and Ayers directed the funds to local community activists who wasted it on trying to “radicalize” the students. An official review of the program found that it was a complete and utter failure.
2.As an Illinois State Senator, Obama directed tens of millions in state money to slumlords Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko meant to provide for housing for low income, minority tenants in return for political donations. Due to shoddy construction and nonexistent maintenance, the majority of the units, after less than 10 years of use, have been rendered uninhabitable.
3.Michelle Obama’s politically connected $316,000 VP of Community Affairs job at University of Chicago Hospitals while her husband was serving as US Senator. She was responsible for the design of an illegal “patient dumping” scheme that prevents local African Americans from using the emergency room at one of the nation’s finest hospitals and instead redirects them to community healthcare centers where they often receive substandard and inadequate treatment. The high paying position was eliminated soon after Mrs. Obama’s departure from the university.
4.Millions in illegal contributions accepted by the Obama campaign during his presidential run. Credit card filters designed to screen out foreign money and domestic donors who had maxed out their legally allowable limits, as required by US law, were intentionally switched off.
5.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s ongoing effort to create international small arms accords that will subvert the Second Amendment rights of US citizens.
6.The Russian-American START treaty signed by Obama in April 2010 that has no chance of making it through Congress unless passed during the lame duck session. Not only does the treaty hamstring US missile defense development and make it difficult to modernize our rapidly aging nuclear weapons arsenal, it represents unilateral disarmament by the US in return for nothing more than Russian “good will”.
7.Moving control of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department directly into the White House where it is managed by Chief of Staff Rham Emmanuel.
8.Providing de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton, who has prohibited ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws outside the institutional setting. The ICE union has subsequently taken the unprecedented step of voting “no confidence” in Morton’s leadership.
9.Attorney General Eric Holder’s failure to sue sanctuary cities for violating US immigration law, while at the same time proceeding with a lawsuit against the State of Arizona for enforcing US immigration law.
10.Failure by Obama to treat the takeover of sovereign land in Arizona by the Mexican drug cartel as an Act of War.
11.Refusal by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administrator David L. Strickland to release results from an internal investigation into the Toyota sudden acceleration problem that contains findings favorable to the foreign automaker.
12.Ongoing efforts by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to gain control over the internet in opposition to a judge’s ruling and Congress’s will, by reclassifying internet companies as telecommunication providers thus making them subject to FCC regulation.
13.Obama and his environmentalist allies preventing US industries from taking advantage of our rich natural resources including oil, coal, uranium and timber.
14.Obama’s month long stint as UN Security Council Chair in 2009, the first ever by a sitting U.S. President. Not only did this action give credibility to an international organization ruled by tyrants, it also called into question potential dual loyalties by our President.
15.The Obama National Security Strategy released in May that allows for the targeted assassination of US citizens including “homegrown terrorists” without due process. It has also been described by the Kremlin, which knows quite a lot about these kinds of things, as a “new law put forth by President Obama capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.”
16.Obama executive order signed in Dec. 2009 that allows Interpol to operate in US territory with impunity and without oversight by Congress, the courts, FBI or local law enforcement.
17.Deployment of 1,200 National Guard troops to border states where they will not, under any circumstances, be used to stop the flow of illegal aliens or drug traffickers.
18.A foreign policy that can be best described as the turning away of our allies, in particular Great Britain, Israel, Honduras, Poland, Columbia, and Taiwan, and the embracement of our enemies.
19.The State Department using $23 million in taxpayer money to help transform Kenya into a constitutionally communist nation where the freedom of speech is limited and private property rights are subservient to “social justice”. In addition, the recently adopted Kenyan constitution allows for the practice of Sharia Law in some regions, ensuring women will not be guaranteed basic human rights.
19.The State Department using $23 million in taxpayer money to help transform Kenya into a constitutionally communist nation where the freedom of speech is limited and private property rights are subservient to “social justice”. In addition, the recently adopted Kenyan constitution allows for the practice of Sharia Law in some regions, ensuring women will not be guaranteed basic human rights.
20.Obama’s refusal to hold press conferences and answer difficult questions as expected of a US President. Never in the modern age has there been a President so unwilling to answer to the American people for his actions. Considering the public’s growing anger towards his progressive policies, it is doubtful Obama will ever hold another press conference again.
21.The $26 billion bailout of the teacher’s unions that Obama recently signed into law. Not only was the money taken from food stamp programs for poor Americans in order to fund Democrat special interests, a portion will be skimmed off the top as union dues and funneled to Democrat political campaigns this fall.
22.Obama’s involvement with Governor Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to sell his old Illinois Senate seat. Even if Obama didn’t try to purchase the position for his chosen replacement, slumlord Valerie Jarrett, at the very least he had to know the seat was for sale.
23.Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s plans to take control of millions of acres of public and private land in Western states by designating them national monuments. These efforts are being carried out in secret and without input from Congress, state and local officials and current land owners.
24.Obama’s use of taxpayer money to pay for Democrat propaganda including $15 million for The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act road signs and $18 million for the perpetually misleading recovery.gov website.
25.The lasting damage Obama has done to the Jewish people. In his less than two years in office, there has been an outpouring of hatred towards the Jews the likes of which I thought I would never live to see. From Helen Thomas telling the Jews to “get the hell out of Palestine” to heavily armed, terrorist flotillas destined for the Gaza Strip described as “peaceful” by the western press. From throwing stones at little old ladies leaving synagogue in Sweden to the thousands of Jewish families fleeing Muslim persecution in France, a sea change in world public opinion against the Jewish people has been accomplished during Obama’s term. Because of his refusal to speak out against virulent anti-Semitism being pushed by left-wing politicians and Islamists around the world, the harm to the Jewish people will surely outlive his presidency and could have terrible, unforeseen consequences

So feel free all you lefties out there.  Attack one, attack all.  Prove false, prove hoax.

While the Corner freely admits more details are needed, on at least some of the “points”, impeachment does seem like a Constitutional option.

Tags: , , , ,

4 Responses to Obama getting ripped in the “threads”

  1. anson burlingame on January 16, 2012 at 9:31 am


    Regardless of how strong anyone may view a political agenda promoted by one side of the other, rarely do such agendas, may I say NEVER do such agendas rise to the level of impeachment. That takes “high crimes or misdemeanors”. Clinton’s perjury was an example that came close but still did not result in impeachment.

    The inflamed rhetoric of the RIGHT in such cases, does much to discredit that political agenda, the correct or “right” agenda.

    I strongly disagree with President Obama’s political goals empitomized by extraordinary spending by government despite all sorts of evidence that such spending does NOT achieve the goals desired. All it does is create dependency.

    But to call for the President’s impeachment, no way and neither should anyone else unless they can prove in a court of law a high crime or misdemeanor of a level demanding impeachment.

    But I sure would hope for a landslide defeat for the Presidents agenda in an election.


  2. Geoff Caldwell on January 16, 2012 at 10:28 am

    And that “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the crux of the matter. Check out this article from Jon Roland, founding member of the Constitution Society:
    I had always thought of the “high” crimes part as meaning “high” or “severe” crimes. Yet in at least the above article (I haven’t had time to research more) the point is made that in the day such “high” crime pertained more to a person holding “high” office who was expected to adhere to a “higher” standard.

    From the article:
    The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word “high”. It does not mean “more serious”. It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

    Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

    Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject’s fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

    While Obama certainly has his “political agenda” that the majority of this nation fervently opposes, some of his “actions” under the “person of high office” do seem to meet the bar for at least discussing the articles of impeachment, do they not?

    Johnson’s impeachment trigger by many accounts was the “political” act of removing Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War and replacing him with Ulysses S. Grant.

    I’m not advocating impeachment proceedings be brought against Obama, but I am saying that many of his acts, when looked through the filter of a “high office holder abusing power” do seem to meet the Constitutional test as has been put forth and used now on two occasions in our history.

    While the spotlight is on SCOTUS this summer for the ACA ruling, another lower court ruling may have even more for reaching affects. That ruling being whether, Obama had the authority to arbitrarily declare the Senate in recess when he made his four “recess” appointments to the CFPB and the NLRB. The amassing of power into the Executive branch that Obama has taken is not, in my view healthy for the long term of the nation.

    While Congress is at present, hopelessly deadlocked and partisan I see that as a far, far less danger to the Republic than one single person sitting in the Oval Office controlling the people by “executive order” and “regulation inundation”. And I don’t care whether the President is Democrat or Republican.

    This country threw off the robes of one person, a King, dictating policy to the people over two hundred years ago. I sure as hell don’t wish to see us now return to such just because the one currently in office is “smart” and “progressive”.

  3. anson burlingame on January 16, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Well Geoff,

    Researching the meaning of “high crimes” is interesting but not germane to my position on the matter of impeachment. Recall we have NEVER removed a President from office by using that route and only in really extraordinary circumstances should we try to do so.

    President Obama has NOT helped our country much in my view, poltical view. But even if he wins four more years in office the country will in fact survive, in my view. In a degraded condition, yes, but survive as America, it will.

    If the country’s survival is at stake then I would consider impeachment as a last gasp to save ourselves.

    But if we are not at that point, then the ballot box is the right way to get it “right”, politically. We did “survive” Jimmy C., did we not?



  4. Geoff on January 16, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    Do you REALLY believe this nation could survive another 6.2 trillion dollars of debt and an ever larger and encroaching federal government that would come with another four years of Obama?
    Jimmy C was just incompetent, Obama and minions are actually undermining our very foundations.
    Johnson was only saved impeachment by one vote. Review what he did compared to what Obama has done to undermine the country’s future and foundations and there is certainly a case of “high” crime to be made against this President.
    But then again, the court cases coming up in the next few months may do what Congress doesn’t have the will to do: Stop him in his tracks before more damage can be done.


October 2021
« Jul