Two Comments On Current Events.

Two Comments On Current Events.  I want to pluck two items out of the current tsunami of global and domestic issues swirling around the Obama administration.  Normally, I would not go near them for fear of my obvious ignorance on the subjects being glaringly obvious.  But these two issues are of such import and relevance that I believe I can make a few general observations from an “everyman’s perspective” and not be too far out of line.  Anyway…here goes.

I just read results from a CNN poll that says 33 percent favor impeaching Obama.  Frankly, I find this shocking.  I followed in detail the Clinton impeachment.  I recall Nixon’s resignation to avoid impeachment.  As much as I detest our current president, I subscribe to the theory that not only must the transgression(s) for impeachment be very high and serious, but that there must also be a clear majority of voters who favor such action; there must be a national political will to do it.  I do not believe there is yet sufficient proof of any Obama administration transgression that rises to the level of impeachment nor is there a clear majority of voters that would support impeachment.  For all the heat that Romney took on his “47 percent" remark, he was nonetheless very close to an obvious truth: This nation is so politically polarized that there is a significant and hardcore group of voters who will support Obama regardless of his performance and/or his actions.  If you cannot convince a significant number of these folks to consider impeachment, you don’t even need to bring the subject up.  But I will say this: As distasteful as I find impeachment, even for this president, if it is proven that he or his approval enabled and/or directed the IRS to target taxpayers based on their political beliefs, then his sorry ass should be impeached.  Of all the scandals that surround this pathetic bunch in the White House, this one stands out to me.  As many accomplished journalists have pointed out, Nixon’s articles of impeachment included one that pointed out his failed effort to use the IRS for political purposes.  If it is determined, conclusively, that Obama was personally involved in any of the pertinent actions that led to the admitted IRS targeting of taxpayers, then he should be impeached; political considerations be damned.   Elections have consequences and we, as a nation, are properly suffering through the consequences of reelecting Obama.  But if he is a crook, he should be removed.

The second issue that I will venture an opinion on is the recent court ruling that was adverse to Obamacare; the Halbig decision.  First off, it is incredible to me that intelligent people in the media are making the argument that it is the proper role of the courts to divine the intent of Congress based on accomplished legislation.  I raised two children and have been married to the same woman for over 40 years and I still cannot divine their intent on a regular basis.  Does anyone really think that federal judges (oftentimes political water carriers with agendas) can honestly and objectively determine the intent of an institution as dysfunctional and disparate as Congress?  Now if the language is ambiguous or arbitrary, or even conflicting from section to another, and there is a pressing need to clear up the matter, then I can see where it can rightly fall to the courts to decide the matter.  But when the language is plain as it is in this case; when the legislation was passed in such an extraordinary fashion to begin with; when it is abundantly clear to any reasonable human being that this is no typo or drafting error; there is only one acceptable remedy to this dispute: Congress must readdress their mistake by subsequent action.  As we all know, that is not possible in this case because there is not majority support in Congress, maybe not even in the Senate, for even the original legislation; much less to revise the original legislation.  Any person who supports Obamacare knows that if it was ever reintroduced in the Senate, there is the possibility that it will be dismantled entirely (why all the executive actions on Obamacare?).  And because of this very real fear, Obamacare supporters have come up with  increasingly bizarre theories about why accomplished law should not mean what it literally says.  If our courts (or for that matter, our Executive Branch) can interpret accomplished law to mean whatever they think, what is the point of having a Legislative Branch in the first place?  Obamacare was an illegitimate product of our legislative process; it was a political creature borne out of a political firestorm.  It is only right and proper that if it is to be changed, it should have to go through the legislative process to effect that change.  If it cannot stand or survive that process, so be it.  Just because you get by with something questionable once does not mean that you should expect a second or third pass on the same shenanigan down the road.