Make no mistake about it: if Democrats gain control of the House of Representatives then they will spend the next two years in a long, lingering and lethal impeachment process in which their procedural control of the lower house of Congress will be used to extract every single cynical political advantage imaginable.
Make no mistake about it: if Democrats gain control of the House of Representatives then they will spend the next two years in a long, lingering and lethal impeachment process in which their procedural control of the lower house of Congress will be used to extract every single cynical political advantage imaginable. Whether the end result is an impeachment “payback” or simply the debilitating erosion of our national security (recall the “nobility” of Democrats in the Nixon Administration, while President Nixon coped with the triumphant of evil in Southeast Asia and the Yom Kippur war in the Middle East) is only a matter of the degree of harm. The damage to peace, liberty and safety will be real and serious.
Knowing this, and with the possibility of Democrats capturing the House of Representatives also real, it is high time to consider whether it matters how the issue of impeachment should be addressed. Polls show, consistently, that the American people favor eavesdropping on people who want to murder our children. When presented honestly, the American people have no problem with our government acting like it acted in the Second World War – getting all the information that we need to defeat evil, particularly when it can be done simply through listening in on conversations or breaking codes.
I wonder if Leftists, when they think (if they think), consider whether it is better to get information necessary to defeat evil by secretly listening into phone conversations or whether it is better to get that information by interrogating prisoners. Humane people (conservatives and other normal people) would rather gain intelligence by wits instead of whips. Perhaps Leftists simply consider defeating evil an unnecessary bother, as irrelevant to their needs as, say, defeating Hitler and Stalin. Power, after all, is their only love, the sole nourishment, their single goal in life.
Americans, thankfully, are normal people. The normality which is the natural consequence of freedom and the embracing of goodness, as each of us grasps goodness, is the soul of America. Moral issues presented squarely to the American people invariably produce a noble response. That nation with an immigration problem spanning a quarter of a millennium – unprecedented in human history – is not by accident the heart of human compassion in the world.
So what House Republicans should do is present the issue squarely to Americans. Do not wait until Leftists run the show: raise the issues surrounding impeachment now. What does this mean? It means this: nothing is complex or requires special hearings or investigations about what President Bush has done in listening in on the conversations of terrorists, in or out of America, with their vicious cronies. Rather than letting the issue linger, President Bush (or Speaker Hassert) should raise the issue themselves. Should President Bush be impeached for listening to the phone conversations of suspected terrorists without prior permission by a court or subsequent confirmation by a court?
Republicans, not Democrats, should compel, as they can while in a majority, a roll call vote on this issue. Make – force! – Democrats to vote on a resolution something like this: “The House of Representatives impeaches the President of the United States for violating federal law by authorizing the covert observation and recording of conversations between potential terrorists and other persons, who may be citizens of the United States.”
Then, do not ask Democrats, like Casper Milquetoast, whether they will agree to vote on this resolution, but while Republicans are in the majority and before the November election, compel Democrats to vote on this resolution. Use the procedural powers which majority status has given Republicans in the last six general elections to insist that Democrats take a public and votary stand on that issue before voters vote.
What, I wonder, would Democrats do if forced to vote on that issue? How many Democrats in marginal districts would vote to impeach President Bush? Few. How many Republicans would vote to against impeachment? All. What would the vote be in the House of Representatives? Overwhelmingly against impeachment.
What such a vote mean in the November elections? It would mean that unthinking thoughts of Leftists would be torn between their insatiable lust for power and that microscopic, ignored dot in their souls or brains called “conscience” would war. Or, bluntly, it would befuddle and confuse them. Their wrath against moral principles would manifest itself in apathy in November. Or, as a great man once said: “How about this: we win; they lose.”
Bruce Walker has been a published author in print and in electronic media since 1990. He is a regular contributor to WebCommentary, Conservative Truth, American Daily, Enter Stage Right, Intellectual Conservative, NewsByUs and MenŐs News Daily. His first book, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie by Outskirts Press was published in January 2006.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
