A Categorically Unimpeachable Man: The Ultimate Political Zombie at Large
Why Barack Hussein Obama Cannot be Ever Impeached
By Joseph Andrew Settanni
How does an entire nation, a presumably beloved patria, fall? Is it all at once, in a dramatic final moment in time, marking a fantastic catastrophe or, usually, slowly and mostly imperceptibly over a fairly long chronological period? Do most or, perhaps, all the people of a country ever really notice? And, if most may notice, on average, do the majority of them really care?
There may be some way to understand what is being put under consideration. Among the ideologies of modernity, conservatism, for instance, is not as profound as it seems to be, then again, none of the modernist ideologies really are; the same could be said, in addition, of all postmodernist fixations. In contrast, the traditionalist right, as a mode of anti-ideological thought, perceives things to their heights and depths with a definitely penetrating comprehension well beyond conservatism and all ideologies. How is this particularly meant?
Thus, it is known, or ought to be observed, that one of the ancient Seven Deadly Sins has vilely captured the heart and mind of America, though few people do seem aware of that unfortunate fact; those noted major sins are rightly called deadly for good and valid reasons, as the souls of those “afflicted” soon are bound for Hell, at least according to traditional Christian theology, minus any repentance. There are implications, however, though not understood by the primarily secular-humanist elite who, generally, constitute the vast bulk of the ruling/political class of this country.
The quite perspicacious cognition concerned demonstrates, thus, why conservatism is so intellectually deficient versus the aforementioned traditionalist right’s more morally comprehensive estimation and extrapolation of what is both integrally and systemically undermining the very mind, heart, and soul of this endangered nation. Let some pertinent discussion be rendered here, which includes the ongoing de-Christianization of America as a real factor to consider, besides the threat of collectivism/statism.
Conservatives may talk about, e. g., the Culture of Death or, perhaps, cultural Marxism as being the ultimate cause(s) of national decay and destruction; while they surely are contributory, however, they alone are just not necessarily absolutely fatal in the general rush toward the Weimarization of society and culture; this is because, among other significant reasons, the neopaganism rising in this country, among the masses, may yet, e. g., be amenable to Christian evangelization at some future time.
Something more terribly subtle and insidious really exists that cannot even be easily conceived of by nominalist modernists and, especially, by relativizing postmodernists who could not then understand, much less consciously comprehend, the true substance and nature of the profundity of the actual evil involved; this is because, in the deficient and decadent view of postmodernists, it is so ancient, as are the Seven Deadly Sins.
Such obnoxious evil, genuine vice, is substantively hard to consciously recognize in (often solipsistic) minds devoted to nominalism in cognition. What is, thus, so horribly destroying America simultaneously protects Obama politically, socially, and culturally, as a much troubled nation struggles rather mightily to recover its foundational bearings, in the early 21st century.
All and any efforts directed toward the supposed possibility of procuring an impeachment are absolutely wasted political efforts; besides the tremendous political and related capital to be necessarily expended concerning such a tantalizing matter, it would be a totally useless exercise to even start any procedures of that nature whatsoever. Added to this overall situation is the important fact that too many people do truly think of themselves as being ultra-sophisticated and, beyond doubt, enlightened such that they can be easily blindsided by often raw or crude aspects of hard human reality.
This nation is, therefore, ideologically dominated by a debilitating and enervating flaw, which ought to be sensibly regarded with a sense of amazing horror, that can become quite fatal, whenever a people, excessively and blindly, embraces it: Vanity.
Why, however, can this always be easily said? The morally debilitating and intellectually degenerate power of cultural Marxism and its powerfully associated PC thinking, a definite form of contemporary vanity, is much too strong in this country; that extremely corruptive ideological power, therefore, would have to be mainly broken first, which is, at present, totally inconceivable as to its political and practical realization in this much spiritually weakened country. Vanity can always, by definition, self-justify itself.
No Congress, absolutely no national political body, would ever want to so go down in history as having impeached the first Black president of this country; that is, as can be readily appreciated, the irrevocable bottom line of just a fixed reality; Obama knows this as a significant fact of political, social, and cultural reality, which, thus, makes him, in a certain sense, the most dangerous man in America. He then could commit a limitless multiplicity of extreme felonies and still remain completely unimpeached, though, of course, he could yet (one supposes) be possibly criminally indicted after his leaving office, etc.
Can it be rationally asked: Is it the very height of racism, nonetheless, to insist that Obama cannot be impeached? That would be the same as insisting that he is, by definition, abnormal in some way. A normal man of the species homo sapien, occupying that office, could be made subject to impeachment, not Obama. What, therefore, is the fantastic conundrum and comprehensive puzzlement?
Categorically speaking, either someone gets placed above the law or below the law; as he is not (yet?) God, he is not above the (merely human) law; presumptively, as he is supposed to be just a human being (a mortal creature), he cannot, as with subhuman animals, be placed simply below the law because not (supposedly) being subject to it. Those could be definitional understandings possessing validity, though not for the current Chief Executive of the USA, as has been already explained. A different person could be impeached, therefore, if he were (now) the President.
Review of Political and Related Realities
But, a tremendously peculiar condition abnormally exists because of the important and pivotal question of race, not, significantly, law or constitutionalism in America. Race has become the puissant political trump card, the “race card” as it is so properly called. Since it is understood that, contrary to, perhaps, some beliefs, he is not the Divine Being Incarnate, it would seem that the law normally and actually applies to him as it does, one assumes, to everyone else in this country.
However, it rather obviously does not, in clear point of fact, due to his ideologically protective skin pigmentation, which then raises an inherently grave problem for presumably free republics. In a nation of equals, are some “more equal” than others, in an Orwellian sense? Yes, apparently, undeniably so.
It cannot be rationally denied, therefore, regarding Obama, the Anointed One, the Great One, the, indeed, Special One held above and beyond any previous Chief Executives in all of American history; he is an anomaly or, rather, is he an abnormality, an irritating aberration, of domestic politics, of the whole polity itself? Previously, in history, only madmen and tyrants thought of themselves as being above the law.
Unless someone were to be declared legally insane, mentally incompetent in some fundamental sense, or, as indicated, some other known condition of actual and accepted legal impairment, such a person, under American law, would be logically and reasonably subject to proper judgment in a court of law or, e. g., the US Senate, constituting a constitutional court of law, to then try a president for impeachment as to a then possible conviction.
But, this is not at all true of Obama; he is above the law, though being possessed of only possible divinity at best. Could he be regarded as a tyrant, if thought to be someone having engaged in deliberately subverting, usurping, the Constitution he was so sworn to fully uphold?
A dilemma, however, exists. A paradox here is real in this so amazing instance. It is axiomatically racist to claim that a human being, because of the race factor involved, cannot be made appropriately subject to constitutionally mandated discipline, meaning, of course, as to possible impeachment by the House of Representatives and then the later trial necessarily conducted by the Senate.
It would be entirely non-racist to insist that an African-American/Black president, completely regardless of his race, could still be so made rightly subject to such a legal process if, of course, thought to be properly warranted. Thus, one plainly sees the both incredible dilemma and equally monumental paradox instantly involved in this now quite terrible matter, put here, under difficult review and manifest examination.
A full bill of indictment, many pages and sections long, could conceivably be constitutionally drawn up against Obama, yet, no Congress, being so very fearful of automatic condemnation (because of alleged racism), would dare act upon it. As is known, Article II, Section IV of the Constitution speaks of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” yet, nothing would be done no matter how so presumably high the major or serious crimes or, for that matter, the precisely exact nature of any possible and grave misdemeanors whatsoever.
Why? Because, ultimately speaking, vanity put Obama in power and may, ironically, prove to be his ultimate downfall as well, though not, as above demonstrated, by any impeachment.
One ought to interestingly know that, constitutionally speaking, no criminal felonies, either specific or general, need to be involved pertaining to any findings of high Crimes and Misdemeanors, which is something not generally known to the public. The findings of an impeachment committee are not, in fact, legally required to legally, prescriptively, or otherwise limit their investigation to only explicit or implicit matters of actually ascertainable criminal jurisprudence or considerations thereof.
It can be well noted, furthermore, that whether one actually agrees or disagrees with, e. g., the 19th century impeachment and trial of President Andrew Johnson, criminality of a specifically felonious nature was not, by definition, the only matter investigated; this was as to many possible impeachable offenses, as so determined by an actual vote of the House of Representatives; readers of this article are, moreover, highly encouraged to look into the many historical and constitutional questions and issues involved.
In a republic, unlike a (despotic or autocratic) monarchy, no man is to be set above the law, except in America, as is obvious, for racial reasons, which is, by definition, a very definite manifestation of actual racism. It is such because the matter in question is directly and unequivocally related to a question of his race, not the possible litigation of justice; the presented subject is, furthermore, impossible to think of, except in specifically racial terms of reference.
And, this has oddly occurred in what many people had expected would become a postracial America that is now powerfully obsessed with the subject of race; it has been, therefore, invidiously made into a definitely pandemic concern with ever multiplying, interrelated, and interconnected ramifications throughout the entire society and culture.
Since Obama is not God (though this may shock some people) and cannot absurdly claim to be higher than the Law of Man (or, for that matter, the US Constitution), he ought, therefore, not to be ever treated as any subhuman/sub-rational being, meaning an amoral and arational animal; he cannot then be, supposedly, held as being below the law (nor, if truth is permitted against PC thought, above the law either).
The then significantly gross and substantively offensive racism, so manifestly involved, that makes him forever totally exempt from impeachment needs, moreover, to be so properly recognized as such and, therefore, ethically and morally condemned as such. Until that happens, America will not be a color-blind society, which is the assumed goal of the progressives; what now clearly exists is, unfortunately, a greatly race-obsessed society, politics, and culture dedicated adamantly to, thus, upholding racism, seemingly then at any cost, to the comprehensive social, political, and cultural order of the entire nation, which is ever psychologically, politically, and morally unhealthy.
By 2012, assuming Obama gets re-elected, it would still not be possible to impeach him, even if the Congress became 90% or more filled with very dedicated and genuinely conservative Republicans. This insanely makes Obama, consequently, a categorically unimpeachable man, as an odd kind of ultimate political zombie at large, held (ideologically) separate from the whole race of men.
In short, there exists the very absurd glorification of racism, by PC thinking in this country, in that race ideologically determines the main kind, form, quality, type, and amount of justice to be made available, meaning when this nation had, in fact, its first Black president. There is to be, as can be easily guessed by now, the supposedly endless expiation due to what gets called White guilt, a true form of vanity, in that Whiteness becomes the only proper measure of genuine conscience and valid morality.
It is yet a modernized, though seemingly inverted, version of what used to be known as the White Man’s Burden, though it is still just as explicitly and inherently racist; this ought not, moreover, to be simply ignored, for all racism ought to be morally condemned and, thus, properly recognized as such.
Another consequence is that the order of republican government qua governance gets deranged and abused by ideologically warping it, in favor of a nauseous understanding of racial justice, by which a racist rationalization undermines the integrity of the juridical and constitutional order of the Republic.
Thus, no amount of time, effort, money, or intellectual endeavor ought, therefore, to be devoted to a fully hopeless cause, for which its supporters would be both verbally and figuratively accursed for life. But, of course, some people do think otherwise concerning a vital cause related to upholding republican government in the honored name of traditional patriotism.
The Contrary Argument
The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America, written by Steven Baldwin, persuasively argues that the Founding Fathers had quite protectively and fortuitously included the impeachment clause in the Constitution; this was politically because they had clearly feared that a power-mad president, deliberately intent on wrongfully subverting the very freedom-enhancing principles that the American experiment was built on, would at some future time come to power.
Baldwin, in a WorldNetDaily promotion piece for the publication, notably states that: “Despite all the checks and balances and obstacles they put in place, the Founders knew a determined cabal could still gain control of all three branches of government and wield this consolidation of power to dismantle our cherished Constitutional principles, and eradicate the freedoms that generations of Americans sacrificed their lives to preserve.”
His interesting report yields a supposedly convincing digest of how Obama’s deliberate actions have “jeopardized America’s ability to defend herself, and undermined our free enterprise system, corrupted our democratic institutions, and transferred massive amounts of power and wealth from American citizens to extremist special interest groups whose loyalty lies not with our Constitution, but with a global socialist movement. This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless the people exercise their precious remaining liberties and stand and demand that their elected representatives impeach this president before further mortal damage is inflicted upon America.”
He forcefully summons up, according to his particular thinking, the feelings and aspirations of the silent majority and, thus, powerfully urges the important need for “the indignation, willpower and energy to make their voices heard,” and then equally insists that “there is still a chance our country may survive.” Baldwin, moreover, perceives, in a predictive manner, the impeachment process against Obama, coming next year, as being inevitable.
Though the entire tenor of the present article, examining this question, may profoundly indicate otherwise, however, it can be yet hoped that what he confidently predicts may occur, no matter how surely doubtful the issue normally appears to most (skeptical) observers.
Conclusion
Perhaps, some future historians, not enthralled by PC thinking, may be fairly amazed to study how a man noted, by many contemporaries, for his own blatant racism had been, ironically, protected by a desire to avoid seeming to be racist by not impeaching him.
Obama is, in effect, racially privileged in 21st century America, unlike White people, meaning if he was a White president; as it is, he is actually a mulatto as to an older classification, though accorded the odd “right” of being called an African-American; this is especially true since his father was a Kenyan.
All in all, interestingly, this rather peculiar Chief Executive of the nation possesses the racially-determined ability to have the privilege of being above and below the law, as are madmen or tyrants. He, unsurprisingly, is a vain man, as could be guessed by his quite public narcissism, a product, thus, of American vanity at large.
For as Alexander Pope remarked, “The greatest magnifying glasses in the world are a man’s own eyes when they look upon his own person.” Entire nations, on the whole, can be afflicted with moral rot attendant to such sin. And, so, this is the way most republics, and most regimes, end, not with a bang, only a whimper. The final fate of men and nations is, thus, that all do ultimately perish, as is known with all its various implications.
Or, as St. Gregory of Nyssa, in his Homily I on Ecclesiastes, said: “All the preoccupation of men with the things of this life is but the game of children on the sands. … For as soon as their labor is completed, the sand falls down and nothing is left of their buildings.”
Or, it might be added here, their civilizations. In the rather classic science fiction movie titled Forbidden Planet, which is mainly based upon the theme set in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, the scientist interprets the horrible and total failure of the entire, wholly secular, alien Krel civilization on “monsters from the id” concerning, then, their most primitive ancestral selves, according to evolutionism, from their earliest primordial times.
But, on the contrary, what then really had happened to such an ultra-sophisticated, extremely hyper-advanced civilization was, upon reflection, their complete inability to have the mental capacity to ever recognize the true flaw of vanity; in that interesting movie, the absolutely technologically superior Krel had become enormously sapiential giants—without any cosmic noetic peers whatsoever—but were terribly transformed, increasingly so generation by generation, into incredibly shrinking moral midgets.
As Ecclesiastes sagaciously puts it, “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”
Perhaps, there is here a both great and needed lesson for Americans and their own advanced civilization whose intellectual, social, political, media, and cultural elites deny the existence of God. This is also, of course, a notable kind of vanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment