Only Impeachment Stands Between America And The Fate Of Zemir Begic
Print Friendly and PDF

Zemir Begic and widow

Zemir Begic and his wife (now his widow)

A “Coalition of the Ascendant” mob beat white Bosnian Zemir Begic to death in front of his wife on Sunday night—two of the “teens” in custody are black, one Hispanic [Fatal hammer attack on Bosnian immigrant not racially motivated, St. Louis police say, by Joel Currier and Christine Byers, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 1, 2014]. (St. Louis is now 3.7% Hispanic, 48% Black, 43.5% white).

Begic’s fate, and the fate of nearby Ferguson, make it obvious to all Americans, except of course to the Main Stream Media and perhaps to St. Louis police spokesthings, that in James Kirkpatrick’s words “we are watching multiculturalism itself go up in flames.” But multiculturalism is coming anyway to an America near you—unless the post-1965 immigration disaster is brought to an end. It is increasingly clear that impeaching Barack Obama must and will be the first step.

Incredibly, on the eve of the meeting at which the Congressional GOP is supposed finally to decide what it is to do about Obama’s Executive Amnesty coup—announced, after all, a mere eleven days ago—House Speaker John Boehner has apparently decided to throw away his last remaining card:

As Congress returns from recess on Monday facing a Dec. 11 deadline for funding the government, Mr. Boehner and his fellow Republican leaders are working to persuade the rank and file — furious over President Obama’s executive action on immigration — that engaging in a spending confrontation is the wrong way to counter the White House. That would set the wrong tone, they argue, as Republicans prepare to take over Congress and fulfill promises to govern responsibly. [Emphasis added].
Boehner Uses New Mandate to Muffle Talk of a Shutdown, by Carl Hulse and Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times, November 30 2014

The right tone, incidentally, is “big legislation—on budgetary issues, tax reform and energy policy,” i.e. paying off big donors.

In other words:

“It [suppressing GOP caucus immigration patriots] is the first real challenge for Boehner and McConnell together,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), a Boehner ally. “They’d like to wipe the slate clean for when they start up next year, with this situation behind us.”[Republicans confront own worst enemy on immigration, by Robert Costa, Washington Post, November 20, 2014. Emphases added.}

Stick a fork in this GOP, it’s done.

Various more or less ineffective GOP responses are being leaked, including: litigation i.e. punting to the courts and avoiding responsibility; cutting off funding; capitulating and passing some form of Amnesty/ Immigration Surge (!); censure; and—silliest of all, proposed not surprisingly by National Review Editor Rich Lowry—cancelling the State of the Union Address. There’s an OK takedown of them here: How Will Republicans Rebuke Obama on Immigration?, by Russell Berman, The Atlantic, December 1, 2014.

Conspicuously unmentioned: closing the Anchor Baby loophole, which would at a stroke at least deprive the Democrats of the political fruits of Amnesty and future illegal immigration. This is a little surprising because the idea, one of themes since 2001, has finally made it into the MSM courtesy of National Review writer and Professional Token Conservative Reihan Salam (A Better Solution to America’s Immigration Problem| End birthright citizenship, Slate, November 21, 2014).

But in the end the plain fact is, as Andy McCarthy—another National Review writer who seems to have no influence on the magazine’s GOP-groupie editorial line—has put it:

Impeaching Obama would be a very unpleasant choice, and there is clearly no appetite for it. But living with what he is otherwise going to do over the next two years (on top of what he has already done) will be a more unpleasant choice. And there are no other choices.

There must have been some memo that I missed about impeachment: virtually all GOP elected officials and Conservatism Inc. pundits have ostentatiously thrown away this card since its 15 minutes of fame last summer—including a (very) few I respect.

But I have no reason to alter the arguments I made here:

And I think Donald Trump displayed great entrepreneurship (not for the first time) recently: Donald Trump: Dems Talking GOP Into Not Impeaching Obama, by Wanda Carruthers, Newsmax, November 24, 2014.

So here’s my memo to the GOP:

  •  Impeachment IS the answer

The most important recent confirmation of this came from Yale Law School Professor Peter H. Schuck: Why Congress Can Impeach Obama| The Impeachment of Obama on Immigration May Be Legal — But It’s Wrong, New York Times, November 21, 2014. Schuck wrote:

The problem is, the pro-impeachment Republicans are right: There is a plausible case for taking that step.


By constitutional design, impeachment for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” is a political accusation and initiates a political remedy, not a legal one. It is pretty much up to Congress to define and apply “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and no court would second-guess it.

Schuck then proceeds to brandish his own immigration enthusiast credentials and kindly advises the GOP that

However truculent Mr. Obama’s defiance may be on this issue, Congress has other ways to stymie it — for example, barring the action by statute. Such tactics are within the normal give-and-take of interbranch disputes. Americans, including many like me who want a legislative amnesty, would support Congress’s use of them here.

Hmmmm. Do we have Professor Schuck’s word on that?

Of course, Obama would veto any such statute, leaving the GOP to find the two-thirds Senate vote necessary to override him that it would need to convict in an impeachment trial anyway. But maybe this could be a useful first step to impeachment.

My suspicion: realization that impeachment is entirely viable is actually pretty widespread, and (as Trump suggests) accounts for the MSM’s Angry Ape intimidation tactics. Further evidence: the Leftist berserker website Salon, in a hysterical attack on Boehner’s litigation evasion, acknowledges in a throwaway line that if Obama is

using “imperial powers,” as the [Wall Street] Journal says, and he’s “changing and creating his own laws, and excusing himself from enforcing statutes he is sworn to uphold,” as Boehner claims, the House has a remedy, and it’s impeachment.


Coward of the House: John Boehner’s pathetic lawsuit reveals his weakness, by Joan Walsh, July 11, 2014
  • It WOULD work.

Ironically, if you search Salon for “impeach,” you quickly find that impeachment was regularly contemplated there—before Obama’s election. (See here and here)


And Salon also provides an example of how impeachment could succeed, in its hagiographic portrayal of the Republicans who bucked under pressure in 1974 as the Democrats moved to impeach President Nixon:

A summer of contentious televised deliberations, conducted by the House Judiciary Committee, resulted in a vote in favor of three articles of impeachment. After thoroughly examining the evidence, a handful of Republicans decided to break ranks with the party and vote with the majority.The Republicans who would’ve impeached Bush?| Not so long ago, members of Congress put the rule of law above partisan politics and loyalty to the White House, by Vincent Rossmier, November 26, 2007

Democratic elected officials, especially from the Red States, would be under much worse pressure in an impeachment trial that would not be about some legalistic infraction—but about a treasonous and ongoing attempt to Elect A New People.

And remember, the ultimate objective here is not to depose Obama, but to end Obamnesty. President Clinton could not unperjure himself. But Obama can stop legalizing illegals.

  • Republicans can’t “get it behind” them.

Not merely St. Louis-style social frictions, but also unpleasant policy revelations like the recent discovery that Obmanesty beneficiaries will be eligible for social security, Medicare etc., are going crop up constantly. Specifically, Republicans will be forced to vote on the legality of Obamnesty in deciding whether to confirm Obama’s replacement for Eric Holder as Attorney General.

  • Obama won’t let the GOP off the hook

Back in July 2010, after the President emitted an earlier collection of ludicrous immigration enthusiast clichés, I wrote Obama's Immigration Speech: Stop Laughing, He's Serious, and warned specifically about the danger of some sort of “Executive Branch parole.” I wrote then of

Obama's narcissistic expectations syndrome…He's always gotten everything he wanted on an Affirmative Action platter. Why not Obamnesty?


I think he'll go for it.


Fasten your seat belts!

My prediction has been borne out.


I now predict that Obama will continue to legislate by decree—in areas that the GOP’s donors actually care about e.g. EPA Sneaks ‘Costliest Regulation Ever’ Over Holidays, by Michael Bastach, Daily Caller, December 1, 2014.


The GOP can run, but it can’t hide.

In attempting to evade the logic of his own position, Professor Schuck wrote in his New York Times Op Ed:

Impeachment, moreover, would tend to normalize its use as a political weapon, even though the framers intended that it be used only in extreme cases that endanger the republic.

Emphasis added. Unfortunately, the U.S. has been driven by disastrous government immigration and other policies into precisely such an extreme case. Unmistakably, the country is coming apart demographically—into America and Anti-America.


The Republic is in danger—and impeachment is both a symptom and a solution.


Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.







Print Friendly and PDF