• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

For a long time, as much as I wanted to see Obama gone, I opposed the notion of Congress attempting to impeach him. I figured that with the Senate in the hands of Harry Reid, nothing would come of it. What’s more, when it was attempted with Clinton, he came out at the other end more popular than ever, a martyr in the eyes of the left.

But I no longer care about the end result. I want Obama to go through the process because he has it coming. In totalitarian states, after all, the people have no other recourse except to take to the streets and spill blood. But we have available the process of impeachment, and Obama should be forced to defend his contemptible lies and actions.

If for no other reason than his unbearable arrogance, the schmuck should have to pay a penalty. For instance, when a White House reporter asked him to justify spying on the Associated Press, Obama said, “I’ve still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and I still have a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.” No, sir, the United States has 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.

It was all too reminiscent of his speech after the execution of bin Laden, when his use of the personal pronoun would have led you to believe he had personally repelled into the Pakistani courtyard and stormed the villa, guns blazing, and that he’d had the Navy SEALs along just for company.

His defense of spying on reporters was that he was checking out leaks into national security matters. Eric Holder, his right-hand stooge, even boasted that this administration had set a record for prosecuting leakers. The point neither of them mentioned was that the only leaks they pursued were those that made them look bad. Apparently, the leaks to the New York Times in 2012 intended to enhance Obama’s pre-election image as a master of foreign diplomacy went no further than Dianne Feinstein’s fatuous vow to ferret out the guilty parties.

Experience more of Burt Prelutsky’s humor and wit in his books — at WND’s Superstore.

Some of the things this administration does are so dumb that you might imagine they’re auditioning for a sitcom on ABC. For instance, in the midst of the IRS scandal, a scandal so pernicious that even some Democrats are calling it scandalous, we discover that the woman, Sarah Hall Ingram, who was heading up the division that targeted conservative groups and individuals for the sort of hell that only the IRS can dole out is – a drum roll, please – the very person Obama has selected to make sure that Obamacare is enforced, with drawing-and-quartering optional.

To be fair, we have been assured that Ms. Ingram is a “superb civil servant.” Unfortunately, the person who gave her that ringing endorsement is the former acting head of Internal Revenue, Steven Miller, who, when last seen, was lying through his teeth to a congressional committee.

Miller is the fellow Obama fired with much fanfare, about two weeks before he was already scheduled to resign. The question I would like answered is whether Miller will continue to receive his federal pension even when he winds up in a federal prison for perjury and obstruction of justice.

I know I am coming across as something of a scold, and I should probably temper my remarks because I have been provided with so many laughs by these assorted goofballs, I am clearly in their debt. For instance, I actually heard a spokesperson for the IRS say that the targeting of conservative groups prior to the 2012 election had nothing to do with politics. I haven’t heard anything that funny since “The Princess Bride.” Mainly, it reminds me of the scene when the comic villain Vizzini (Wallace Shawn) kept responding to one unpleasant fact after another by sputtering “Inconceivable!” Eventually, his reluctant henchman, Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin), has had enough and says, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

In a sane world, wouldn’t someone who denied the targeting by the IRS had anything to do with politics be compelled, by force if necessary, to suggest an alternative explanation? Coincidence, perhaps? Sun spots? Or maybe just one of those crazy things.

Only in the world of fiction would I expect to encounter a president, an attorney general and a former secretary of state so eager to claim that on all of these major issues, one involving the massacre of four Americans, including an ambassador, they were simply out of the loop.

I would suggest that Obama, Holder and Mrs. Clinton, could easily fill in for the three monkeys who hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil, except that I would no doubt be tarred as a racist and a misogynist.

Oh, what the heck! I think I’ll go ahead and do it anyway.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.