On Sunday, July 13th, Jason Easley — at politicsusa.com, which bills itself “Real Liberal Politics” — bannered, “Top House Republican Admits That There Are No Grounds To Impeach President Obama,” and Easley reported that, “The [Republican] chairman of the House Judiciary Committee admitted today that Republicans have no grounds for articles of impeachment against President Obama.”
Both video and transcript were shown of that; here’s the transcript, from ABC News, “This Week,” on Sunday:
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the other things you see coming out of this are more and more calls for the president to be impeached, Sarah Palin most prominently this week. Any articles of impeachment would be drawn up by your committee. Is this something you’re considering? Or do you agree with Speaker Boehner who says it’s off the table?
GOODLATTE: We are not working on or drawing up articles of impeachment. The Constitution is very clear as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment of the president of the United States. He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that.
Easley notes: “Republicans have been calling for this president to be impeached for things that George W. Bush did. Currently, some Republicans want to impeach Obama for Bush’s immigration policy. It never stops.” And he is correct about that: doing it would be impeaching him “for things that George W. Bush did.” And that’s why Republicans really don’t want to do it.
Easley writes as a Democrat, and he expresses smug satisfaction that Obama is protected from being impeached because it would have to be “for things that George W. Bush did.” But I think that Easley’s smug assumption there, that avoiding impeaching Obama would be good for the Democratic Party, is shallow and profoundly false; in fact, I think it would be a terrible thing for the Democratic Party, and also horrible for the nation.
I write both as a Democrat (which Barack Obama merely claims to be, but shows by his actions that he is not) and as an American (which Obama, unfortunately, actually is, but which Republicans, in their craziness, often deny), in the hope of preserving the honor not just of my Country, but of my Party, both of which Obama violates routinely. Thus: I am not so smug as Easley is, and I think that, actually, the only way that congressional Democrats can retain control in the Senate and maybe even win back control of the House, during the mid-term congressional elections this coming November, would be for congressional Democrats to push for Obama’s impeachment. Obama is a terrifically unpopular President, and his being called a “Democrat” is, in fact, destroying the Democratic brand, which desperately needs to be rebuilt.
On Tuesday, July 15th, the Washington Post bannered, “New Election Lab forecast suggests 86 percent chance that GOP wins Senate,” so that Republicans starting next year would control both houses of Congress, and the final two years of Obama’s Presidency are expected to be passing only legislation that Republicans want. This is merely the latest in a long line of such predictions of a total Republican grip on Washington during Obama’s closing two years, 2015 and 2016. All polling shows that anything else than that outcome would require almost a miracle. But if Democrats push for Obama’s impeachment, that impeachment of Obama by Democrats might provide this “miracle.”
President Obama is far less popular now than is even former President George W. Bush, and the widespread disgust with Obama is the chief thing that’s crippling the Democratic Party’s chances of retaining control in the Senate. People are blaming congressional Democrats as if they’re extensions of this profoundly unpopular President.
Furthermore, Obama ought to be impeached. It is the right thing to do; it is, indeed, a moral necessity, and not only a practical one. Here’s why:
When President Obama refused to allow the prosecution of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their manifest crimes, after they had been in office (their having lied this country into invading a country that was no imminent threat to the United States, tortured people, violated the 4th Amendment by unleashing the NSA against the American public, unleashed Wall Street crooks against the American people via MBS frauds, etc.), Obama thereby took upon himself Bush’s and Cheney’s crimes, as being his own. Those crimes still need to be prosecuted — now by America prosecuting Obama himself, for his covering them up: he still does it, after all of these years. Those crimes are no less heinous and, indeed, no less treasonous, now that a so-called “Democrat” is hiding them, than they were when his self-acknowledged Republican predecessors, and now in some cases even the fake “Democrat” Obama himself, were and have been and still are perpetrating them. They still need to be prosecuted, in order for the U.S. to possess any honor going forward, and any realistic hope of a better future for our nation. Without accountability, there is nothing but dictatorship. That’s the reality of our situation. The people who possess power without accountability are our dictators: they stand above the law; we stand below the law, as their subjects, no longer as authentically American citizens, for they have stolen our democracy from us, and made it into their own kingdom, instead. This is not America; and for us to accept it as if it were, would be for us to defile our great Founders, who waged their Revolution in order to defeat such tyrants — tyrants who now have come back from the dead, only with different faces and names.
There are several important reasons why the resurgence of torture remains a possibility in post-Bush America:
Torture did not necessarily end when Obama took office.
We have never had a full accounting of all the torture programs in the “war on terror.”
Not one of the senior government officials responsible for activities that amounted to war crimes has been held accountable, nor were any of the actual torturers ever brought to court.
She documented each one of her points, the last two of which are urgent indicators of the necessity for Democrats (yes, Democrats, since Obama claims to be one of us) to bring forth in the U.S. House of Representatives an impeachment resolution and proceedings against the worst “Democratic” President in U.S. history, or else we shall be implicitly accepting his crimes as being unpunished crimes by our Party, in the person of Obama, just like the Republican Party accepts Bush’s and Cheney’s crimes as being unpunished crimes by their Party, in the persons of Bush and Cheney. And, if Obama’s crimes are acceptable by our Party, then our Party is an embarrassment to our country and should be dissolved, just as the Republican Party has long been an embarrassment to our country and should have been dissolved when they turncoated into Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” and began their ideological war to restore (but now nationwide) the racist Confederacy that President Abraham Lincoln (the only and last great Republican) had heroically slammed down. The bullet of John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln’s reformist Republican Party, and brought us, instead, the Party of America’s northern aristocracy — but now it has become, ever since Nixon, the Party of America’s southern aristocracy, who are even worse. Without the solidly Republican South, that Party would simply collapse as a national party — it would stand no chance of electing future Presidents.
However, there are two more reasons why Obama needs to be impeached, removed from office, and then prosecuted for treason:
I have previously documented that “Obama Definitely Lied About Having Intent to Prosecute Banksters,” and so won’t repeat that here. But suffice it to say in summary: Obama did publicly promise to pursue and prosecute any bankster-CEO criminality that had been involved in crashing the American economy in 2008, and Obama’s promise turned out to be a blatant lie. By contrast, he had told the banksters themselves the very opposite in private, barely two months into his Presidency, and he kept that promise to them, the promise that he had made in secret. He told them, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I want to help. … I’m not out there to go after you. … I’m going to shield you from public and congressional anger.” And he did precisely that, as is shown, for example, by:
On 15 November 2011, Syracuse University’s TRAC Reports … headlined “Criminal Prosecutions for Financial Institution Fraud Continue to Fall,” and provided a chart showing that whereas such prosecutions had been running at a fairly steady rate until George W. Bush came into office in 2001, they immediately plunged during his Presidency and were continuing that decline under Obama, even after the biggest boom in alleged financial fraud cases since right before the Great Depression. And, then, on 24 September 2013, TRAC Reports bannered “Slump in FBI White Collar Crime Prosecutions,” and said that “prosecutions of white collar criminals recommended by the FBI are substantially down during the first ten months of Fiscal Year 2013.” This was especially so in the Wall Street area [the source of the 2008 collapse].
The President is the head of the Executive branch of our Government; he’s responsible for prosecution of criminals, and this includes his powers over the Department of Justice, the SEC, and all other enforcement agencies, to hire and fire the heads of those agencies. But instead, the most elite and harmful crooks actually receive his (and consequently those agencies’) protection from prosecution.
Furthermore, he has done essentially nothing to prevent a recurrence of the 2008 crash, as was documented by Alexander Arapoglou and Jerri-Lynn Scofield headlining, “The Looming Threat That Could Initiate the Next Economic Collapse” indicating that only sham-enforcement occurs under Obama, and that only sham-legislation has been passed in Congress and signed into law by President Obama. While Congress has been corrupt, this President has been opposed to their being anything but corrupt; so, he has provided no leadership whatsoever except of a merely rhetorical kind, and except, in his actions and not his words, to protect the biggest crooks: the megabank CEOs, who get mega-rich from these crimes and keep their loot while the U.S. public bails out the banks they’ve looted from the top.
PERPETRATING ETHNIC CLEANSING ABROAD:
Finally, just as President Bush defiled the Presidency by unwarrantedly invading Iraq in 2003 and lying through his teeth all the way there and afterward about it, Obama has defiled the Presidency in 2014 by overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine and lying through his teeth all the way and afterward, about that. And Obama’s crime in Ukraine is even worse than Bush’s crime in Iraq, because it’s much more dangerous, with even bigger stakes and risks (all of which are purely downside for both the American and the Ukrainian peoples — much as Bush’s Iraq-invasion also was, for both Americans and Iraqis).
A terrific video compilation, with tapped phone-conversations and other damning proofs, shows that there can be no reasonable doubt that the February 2014 Ukrainian coup — which produced the civil war in Ukraine — was engineered from the U.S. White House. However, unreasonable doubt has been circulated by the White House’s agents, in the form of misrepresenting the evidence as being less conclusive than it really is. Consequently, the following will present in detail the most damning single piece of evidence of all, an item of evidence which is mentioned only briefly, and only briefly excerpted, in that video (the one just linked to), but which is far more conclusive when it’s presented in full, as it will be here: this is the 25 February 2014 phone conversation between two EU officials immediately after the coup.
This conversation goes by so fast so that a transcript of it is really necessary, in order for one to be able to absorb the full import of what’s happening and being revealed there. Consequently, what now follows will be the transcript of this entire astounding phone call, with explanatory notes added in brackets for the reader’s comprehension of what was being referred to by these officials, in this phone-call that shows the truly astonishing extent of Obama’s depravity — a depravity that clearly shocked these EU officials, even while they seemed to have been resigned to it.
Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet phones the EU’s foreign-affairs chief Catherine Ashton, to report on the findings of his February 25th inquiry for the EU, into the situation in Ukraine right after the coup that had just overthrown Ukraine’s democratically elected (in 2010) President Viktor Yanukovych:
good afternoon madame.
this is again the center action service …
should we go, do you think it is going to be possible straight away?
to connect Mr. Katz … yes sir.
so please go on, I’m connecting with the Lady Ashton cabinet.
yes thank you.
yes hello this is Mian speaking.
yes it is for the conference with the Estonian foreign minister, they are online.
yes hello can you put me through please?
yes i’ll connect you to Mr. Katz, one moment.
hi I’ll put you through, thank you very much.
hello how are you?
I am fine.
good. I’m good.
good. I just wanted to catch up with you on what you thought when you were there.
yes, I returned last night already, so that I was one day.
Impressions are sad. I met with representatives of Regions Party [the Party of the just-ousted President Yanukovych], also new coalition representatives, and also civilian society, there is this lady called Olga, who is head of the doctors, yes, you know her.
yes, I do,
so that yes, whew, my impression in this is sad, that there is, well, no trust, that there was the sense that there was those politicians who will return now to the coalition, well, people from Maidan [the anti-Yanukovych demonstrators] and from civilian society [non-governmental leaders in Ukraine], they say they know everybody who will be in your [whatever the Maidaners install as constituting the new] government, and all these guys have dirty past [i.e., even the Maidan leaders know that everyone who stands even a chance to be installed into the new government has a “dirty past”]
so that they, well, they made some proposals to this same Olga and to others from civilian society, that they join new government, but this Olga, for example, says directly that she’s ready to go [in]to the government only in the case if she can take with her her team, call in experts to start real healthcare reforms, so that, oh, basically that the trust level is absolutely low; on the other hand all the security problems, the (inaudible) problems, Crimea, all this stuff, Regions Party was absolutely upset, they say that well they accept this now, that there will be new government and there will be external [for-Yanukovych’s-replacement] elections, but there is enormous pressure against the members of parliament [from his Regions Party], that there are uninvited visitors [Ukrainian nazis] during the night, to [Regions] Party members, well, journalists, some journalists who were with me, they saw during the day that one member of parliament was just beaten in front of the parliament building, by these guys with the guns on the streets [the highly organized Ukrainian nazis, beating those Parliamentarians, to terrorize them into not resisting the coup],
so that all these messages is still there, and of course this Olga and others from civilian society, they were absolutely sure that people will not leave the streets before they see that the real reforms will start, so that it is not enough that there is just change of government. [He now changes totally to what the EU’s and his own country’s leaders care the most about, which isn’t at all “she can take with her her team, call in experts to start real healthcare reforms,” but instead:] There is the main impression, so that from EU’s and from Estonia’s perspective of course, they should be ready to put this financial package together [for their aristocrats’ Ukrainian bondholders], also together with others, this very clear message is needed that it’s not enough that there is a change of government, that the same real reforms, re. an election, to increase the level of trust [is needed], otherwise it will end badly [those loans won’t be repaid]. Because the Regions Party [the people now afraid] also said that then you will see that if the people from the eastern part of Ukraine [which they represent] will really wake up, and start to demand their rights [as the Maidaners in the west had been demanding theirs], some people with me were in Donetsk [in the east] their people said, well we can’t wait, how long still the occupation of [by] Ukraine lasts in Donetsk [i.e., they were already so alienated by rule from the west so that, even under Yanukovych, they considered it to be “occupation”], that it is real Russian ship city and we’d like now to see that Russia will take over [and any such breakaway would remove from Ukraine assets that otherwise could be available to pay back EU loans]. So that those are [my] short impressions.
Now very very interesting. I’ve just had a big meeting here with Olli Rehn and the other [EU] commissioners. We are working on financial packages, short, medium, long term, everything from how we get money in quickly, to how we can support the IMF [guarantor of international loans], and how we can get the kind of investment packages and business leaders, and so on. On the political side, we’ve worked out resources we’ve got and I offered to civil society and to Yatsenyuk [the banker whom Obama’s agent was now actually choosing to run the country] and Klitchko and everybody I met yesterday, we can offer you people who know how to do political and economic reform [i.e., to make whole the bond-bets of Europe’s aristocracy]. the countries that are closest to Ukraine have themselves been through dramatic changes, and have done big political and economic reform, so we’ve got loads of experience to give you, which we have to give. I said to the people in Maidan, yes, you want real reform, but you’ve got to get through the short term first, so you need to find ways in which you can establish a process that will have anti-corruption at its heart [this need reflecting the interests of both Europe’s aristocrats who have loaned money to Ukraine, plus of the Ukrainian public, so that Ukrainians won’t continue to be robbed blind by Ukraine’s own oligarchs — benefiting both the EU’s aristocracies plus the Ukrainian public], that will have people working alongside until the elections, and that you can be confident in the process. I said to Olga, you may not be health minister now, but you need to think about becoming health minister in the future, because people like you are going to be needed to be able to get to make sure that things will happen. But I also said to them, if you simply barricade the buildings now, and the government doesn’t function, we can’t get money in, because we need a partner to partner with [in order to get those European loans paid back]; and I said to the opposition leaders, shortly to become government, you need to reach out to Maidan, you need to be, you know, engaging with them; you also need to get ordinary people back on the streets under a new sense of their role, so that people feel safe. I said to the Party of Regions [Yanukovych’s] people, you have to go and lay flowers where the people died, you have to show that you understand what has happened here, because what you are experiencing was anger, of people who have seen the way that Yanukovych lived and the corruption, and they [Ukrainians] assume you’re all the same; and those are the people who’ve lost people, and who feel that he [Yanukovych] ordered that to happen; there’s quite a lot of shock, I think, in the city, a lot of sadness and shock, and that’s going to come out in some very strange ways if we’re not careful. I think all of this we’re going to have to work on. We’ve done a big meeting here today, to try to get this in place. But yes, it’s very interesting, your observations.
It is, and actually the only politician the people from civilian society mentioned positively was Poroshenko [who was soon to become the ultimate winner in the May 25th Presidential “election,” which was held only in Ukraine’s northwest, because by then the regime’s massacres of people in the southeast had already begun and so the residents there knew that they didn’t want to be ruled any longer from Kiev], so that he had some so to say trust among all these Maidan people and civilian society; and [NOW COMES THE BOMBSHELL] second, what was quite disturbing, the same oligarch [Poroshenko — and so when he became President healready knew this] told that well, all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, [this will shock Ashton, who had just said that Yanukovych had masterminded the killings] that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides [so, Poroshenko himself knows that his regime is based on a false-flag U.S.-controlled coup d’etat against his predecessor]
Well, that’s yes, …
So that and then she [Dr. Olga Bolgomets] also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can, you know, say that it’s the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition that they don’t want to investigate, what exactly happened; so that now there is stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition. [Notice here that Paet had tactfully avoided saying that Ashton’s assumption that it had been Yanukovych was false; instead, he totally ignored her having said that, and he here simply said that the evidence went totally the opposite direction, the direction that Poroshenko himself knew to be true.]
I think that we do want to investigate. [That sentiment on her part lasted about one second.] I mean I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh? [Ashton here seemed to have felt embarrassed, and she thus ended in a “Gosh” that was almost inaudible, as if a question, and then she proceeded simply to ignore this crucial matter entirely. All of the evidence suggests that she was exceedingly reluctant to believe that the bad guys here had actually been on the anti-Yanukovych side. She didn’t want to believe that, perhaps because her supreme priority was getting Europe’s loans paid back.]
So that it was in this instance disturbing that if it’s us now to live its own life very powerfully, then it already discreditates from the very beginning also this new coalition.
[At this point, Ashton noticeably jerks the topic back to the needs of her own sponsors, Europe’s lenders to Ukraine, who want to be paid back; and she suddenly sours on Olga, as being “not a politician.”]
I mean this is what we’ve got to be very careful of as well, that they need to demand great change, but they’ve got to let the Rada [Parliament] function. If the Rada doesn’t function, then we’ll have complete chaos. [Ashton clearly wants now to sweep those bullets and blood under the rug.] So, being an activist and a doctor is very important, but it means you’re not a politician, and somehow they’ve got to come to a kind of accommodation for the next few weeks, as to how the country’s actually going to run, and then we get the elections and things can change. And that’s, I think, going to be quite pop[ular]. I’m planning to go back early next week, hoping on Monday [and the end of the conversation discusses the big EU names who will be coming to Ukraine the next week].
This phone-conversation reveals that:
1: Ashton was authentically ignorant of the long-organized Obama operation, which had been prepared in conjunction with far-rightwing and rabidly anti-Russian politicians in other countries, especially in Poland, to plan this coup (and the secret training in Poland of Ukrainian nazis was intensive and was perfectly designed for the coup that unfolded just five months later in Kiev; so, this was, indeed, a very skillful operation), and also with the cooperation of Israel’s far-right. This international operation was organized by the CIA, so skillfully that even Cathy Ashton and Urmas Paet knew nothing of it in advance.
2: As the numerous videos, of the coup itself, document, it was a brilliant “false flag” operation, which fooled even Ashton and Paet as to who was “behind the snipers.” This was international intrigue of the very highest order.
3: Even after Ashton learned that she had been fooled, she continued unwaveringly on, promoting the interests of her bondholders, even though she now knew (or had been authoritatively informed by Paet) that the entire operation was profoundly corrupt, and even though she had earlier prettified her concerns as urging “a process that will have anti-corruption at its heart.” (And note also that she said this after Paet had already informed that “all these people have dirty past.”) Although (unlike Obama) she didn’t want to continue (if not indeed to intensify) Ukraine’s legendary corruption, she chose to do that when she felt that it would be necessary in order for her bondholders (basically via the IMF) to get paid back. It would now be a battle over Ukraine’s assets, between Europe’s aristocrats, versus Russia’s aristocrats: an international bankruptcy-proceeding, to be determined militarily between NATO versus Russia, not by any international bankruptcy court of law. This is a bare-knuckle international battle between aristocracies: that’s what this is really all about.
4: Now we know what Victoria Nuland was referring to when she said “F–k the EU!” Ashton and Paet are more concerned about the interests of their mega-investors than about the lives of any Ukrainians, but aren’t (as Nuland was) eager for Ukraine’s nazis to run that country and to become the people who would bring Ukraine into the EU. They don’t want that (they had had enough of Hitler, and also of Mussolini). Obama does: he craves Ukraine in NATO; that’s why he’s installing this government. That’s how right-wing our President is. And all of this happened barely two months after Nuland had told a group of extremist right-wingers, with proud satisfaction, that, “We have invested more than five billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals,” which she euphemistically called “democracy” (which Ukraine actually already had, before we took them over and placed nazis and other fascists in charge there, but which democracy Obama didn’t like there; so, he ended it and started his ethnic cleansing to get rid of the voters he didn’t want to be there; he used the local nazis to do precisely that; that’s why he chose them to rule).
Then, on May 1st of 2014, the IMF’s Christine Lagarde made clear that the IMF would halt the continuation of loans to Ukraine unless the Kiev government either killed or else expelled the independence-seeking residents in the southeastern half of Ukraine. From her standpoint, those people needed to be defeated, conquered, right away, because most of Ukraine’s industry and valuable properties are in the southeast, and the Obama-IMF plan was for the privatization of virtually everything in Ukraine, especially of those valuable properties in the southeast, in order to be able to repay Ukraine’s debts to western investors (after billions from those loans had already long-since been skimmed off by Ukraine’s ruling oligarchs and socked away into secret bank accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere — which is why those Ukrianian debts now were so large — but Christine Lagarde isn’t going after their bank accounts). Also, this fire-sale of those formerly state-owned properties would drive down the prices of them, and thus engender huge future investment-gains for the western aristocrats who would be buying them up. This would be an operation to shove aside Russia’s oligarchs and the Russian government itself, which were Ukraine’s biggest creditors, to grab everything there, leaving nothing for the Russians — and totally stripping the Ukrainian government’s services (like health care, and road-maintenance) to the Ukrainian people, thus making Ukraine’s public the ultimate victims of the entire operation.
The day after that IMF warning, occurred the Kiev regime’s massacre of independence-supporters inside Odessa’s Trade Unions Building on May 2nd, run by Obama’s Ukrainian agents. This was the event that actually sparked Ukraine’s civil war, because it indicated to the people in the southeast: the Kiev government want to kill us. That civil war has been actually an ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in southeastern Ukraine, whom Obama and his hacks call “terrorists” in order to fool their believing suckers in the U.S. and rest of the West. Obama’s forces in Ukraine are not looking to win hearts and minds in the occupied areas, but instead to exterminate some so that the survivors will simply flee to Russia, where they can no longer vote in Ukrainian “elections.” On 13 July 2014, Britain’s Financial Times headlined from Slavyansk, “Bitter Residents of Slavyansk Pick Up Pieces of Shattered City,” and reported a typical resident saying:
“Nobody will tell you the truth now, it is dangerous,” she said. “But someone, someday, will pay for this.”
Pointing to a nearby building that had lost most of its faÃ§ade, she said a rebel fighter’s wife had died there. “Do you think he shot at his home and killed his wife?” [She was mocking the West’s calling the residents there ‘terrorists,’ when it is actually Obama’s people who are terrorizing them, to flee.]
“About 20 per cent of our city feels liberated by the Ukrainian army. The rest [feel they] are now under occupation,” she added.
What Obama’s forces are doing there isn’t even intended to be any “liberation,” no more than Hitler was intending to “liberate” Belgium, or Poland, or France. It is sheer military domination. However, this time, instead of domination purely for theft and exploitation, it is being done also in order to drive the residents there out. Unlike the IMF and western investors, Obama also has a strictly military objective: to expel and/or kill the people in Ukraine’s southeast who were pro-Russian and who therefore opposed the building of NATO missile bases there, to be aimed against Moscow a mere ten-minute flight away from Russia’s nuclear annihilation. “Nuclear primacy” (replacing”MAD”) is a chief goal of this President, as it had been of his predecessors going back at least as far as Bill Clinton (and actually back to Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” program). Ukraine, right next door to Russia, is a key to their goal of, as Obama put it, “Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.” Obama alleged: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us.” So, he phrases it as stopping “Russia’s aggression.” (Also note that he phrases our “competitors” as being “rising middle classes,” and not as being foreign aristocracies; and he is talking there at West Point, to the military, for whom “competitors” are actually the enemies. He’s telling West Pointers that they’re at war against “rising middle classes,” and not against foreign aristocracies — as they actually are.) Think what would have happened, then, if Khruschev had similarly said that he wanted Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba in order to stop “American aggression.” We probably wouldn’t even be here to talk about it, because there would probably then have been a nuclear war; but it seems that Khruschev wasn’t as arrogant as is Obama. He was a lot more reasonable than is Obama. Times have certainly changed.
DO-OR-DIE TIME FOR DEMOCRATS:
If Democrats don’t initiate impeachment proceedings against Obama, then the Democratic Party will be at least as dishonored as the Republican Party is after George W. Bush, for their protecting him; and I, for one, will quit it and urge its replacement, hoping for a leader like Abraham Lincoln to emerge, who had quit the Whig Party and who succeeded at replacing it by the new (and, tragically, only briefly progressive) Republican Party (which tragically then became taken over by northern aristocrats the very moment when Lincoln was assassinated).
Either Democrats need to retake our Party, or else to end it, now. We have tolerated Obama’s outrages too long, as it is. For Democrats to retake the Party, requires Democrats to impeach President Obama.
Of course, Democrats would never even consider his being impeached on the Republicans’ phony grounds, such as “death panels” and “birth certificate,” but we might get Republicans to vote for impeaching him on the real grounds, even though the real grounds are that Obama has pursued, with a vengeance, Republican policies, which are opposed by the Democrats in Congress. (In fact, Republican John McCain is the strongest congressional supporter of the ethnic-cleansing campaign occurring in Ukraine.)
That’s how terrible things have now become in Obama’s America; and it’s up to Democrats ourselves to fix them, because nobody else will or even can. Republicans certainly won’t, because he is actually one of them, in his heart-of-hearts, and his Presidency has been the greatest gift to the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan’s — but Reagan was honest enough to call himself a Republican, and Obama is not. He prefers to play the “good cop,” to their bad cop, in order to get the dirty deeds done, that both of them want done. We must not allow that to stand, as representing our Party. Let’s leave that to the Republicans alone, while we seek their support for an impeachment resolution that’s cast upon Democratic grounds, which are truthful grounds.
Because otherwise, the Democratic Party is already in rigor mortis.
DO-OR-DIE TIME FOR DEMOCRACY:
The signs of the fascist turn of the American Government are also all around us, such as in the Bush-Obama “reforms” (largely privatizations) of the formerly public system of public-school education. We all had better watch out: things have already gone beyond the danger-point. The public is virtually disappearing from power, and increasingly, only the aristocrats are in control now. That’s the real news-story of our time, and it’s not being reported by the aristocracy’s controlled “news” media.
[POSTSCRIPT: This news report and analysis was offered as an exclusive to, and was rejected by: The Nation, Mother Jones, New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Progressive, Foreign Policy, Independent, Guardian, TIME, Harper’s, Atlantic, McClatchy, Register, AP, Bloomberg, Slate, Huffington Post, and Salon.]
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.