The Fog is Lifting...
the Fraud is becoming Clear

To our knowledge, Brushfires has been a lone voice suggesting Obama should be removed as President on the grounds of fraud committed by him in the 2008 election. (See “Not the Obama We Knew; Not the Government We Chose” and the list of Brushfires essays cited therein). In the abstract, this can seem a fanciful suggestion; after all, don’t we all agree that all politicians lie, and who’s to say Obama’s lies were any worse than any other candidate’s? Besides, even many comparatively engaged citizens would probably believe the Constitutional means of removal through impeachment requires that impeachable offenses must occur while one is in office rather than acts of dishonesty in campaigning for the office.

We’ll come back to the definition of impeachable offenses. For now, the more important movement of thought is captured in Karl Rove’s May 21 WSJ column. Rove or the WSJ editors gave it the trivialized title of “Flip-Flops and Governance”, but the content is coming around to the real gut-level issue that is being felt by more and more people across the political spectrum. Rove noted:

Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else..

That ‘something else’, Mr. Rove, is called evidence of fraud.

Rove’s column included this gem in his last paragraph:

America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year.

This, too, is understood by people of common sense to be fraud.

Rove is of course known for his role as a senior advisor to President Bush. For that reason, his comments are routinely dismissed by the left as those of a partisan. But as readers of the WSJ know, his is a widely read column because of the bipartisan respect he enjoys for political acumen. He’s also a serious, experienced player who for that reason would never deploy an explicit hardball accusation of fraud. But it seems to us that fraud is exactly the issue he is putting into play, and we expect to see more of it as Obama pursues the radical left agenda that was simply nowhere to be found in his public persona and stump speeches and debate performances in the 2008 election campaign.

We also see evidence of thought moving toward Brushfires in Michael Steele’s recent comments on Bill Bennett’s radio show, where he castigated the Pravda media for its failure to vet Obama during the campaign. Again, Steele is too Beltway-savvy (and Beltway-fearful) to utter the word fraud, but why else is a failure to vet a problem? It can’t really be a problem if Obama as President is acting as the man Obama the candidate portrayed—because if he’s just doing what he said he’d do and what voters believed he would do, there’s no particular significance to whether or not he was adequately vetted.

We think few exercises could be more therapeutic and cleansing for the American political process than to see a President removed for fraud in conducting his or her campaign for the Presidency. Legal Cassandras can raise all the hypothetical, potential-for-abuse arguments they want to, but the fact is that few such charges could ever stick. The shifting nature of political debate makes proof of fraud as to any particular portion of the campaign especially difficult. But Obama is in a league of his own when it comes to campaign fraud, beginning of course with the never-conclusively answered question about his birthplace, citizenship and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President.

Every day that goes by causes another responsible voter—including many who voted for Obama—to say, “Who the hell is this guy? Where did all this hard-left philosophy come from? Why did he hide it in the campaign? I the voter simply had no idea that any of this was coming…”

Make no mistake, Obama consciously hid who he was, how he thinks and what his philosophy of government was and is. Michael Steele may want to draw attention to a complicit media in its failure to vet Obama. Steele’s right, and the media’s failure is the media’s responsibility (and they are paying for it as they continue to lose subscribers because of their biased, shoddy reporting). But the actual fraud—the actual effort by which the failure to vet could be exploited to win an election, and the particulars behind Karl Rove’s statement that ‘constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate’—was solely Obama’s. Obama needs to be made responsible for it.

There are a lot of things going on in Obama’s government that no one thought they’d ever see in America. Impeachment for fraud in the campaign for the Presidency is also something that most would say would never be seen in America. But we say—stay alert and keep watching. Because the nasty, despairing fact is that conditions in America are going to continue to deteriorate. There is no other possible outcome from the pursuit of hard-left socialism in a conservative country. A conservative country would never have adopted such an agenda; it could only be deceived into it. And it was.

The moral power behind the case for removing Obama for fraud is something that Pravda and most of the legal profession simply can’t grasp. They reside in the godless intellectual world, where there is no such thing as moral power. But moral power permeates and shapes law and justice, not the other way around. We think this moral power is gaining strength every day. A growing majority of honest Americans know they’ve been had, and they’re not going to take it lying down.

We think Gerald Ford had it right when he reportedly said that an impeachable offense is “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

The tea water is still boiling…and history is moving.

Paul Gable

Posted May 24, 2009