• “Obstruction of Congress?” Huh?!?


What the heck?!?

Has anyone ever heard of:

  • “Separation of Powers?”
  • “Balance of Power?”
  • “Co-equal Branches of Government?”
  • “Checks and Balances?”

Serious question here: What is the phrase “Checks and Balances” if not just different words meaning… “Obstruction?

The President has one job

Just kidding. The President has many jobs, but one of them, and one of the most important, could be labeled: “Obstruction of Congress.”

The founders of this country understood that to vest too much power in any one entity of the government would be to court disaster in the form of either personal or oligarchical tyranny. That’s why they did their level best to separate power, to distribute it, to divvy it up, between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the American government.

The founders also knew that each of these entities would tend to try to grab more and more power over time.  In one of the most revolutionary notions of recorded history, they also recognized this as a serious problem. Accordingly, they made it a sacred responsibility of each branch of government to… obstruct the others.

The deluded idiot Democrats in Washington — the entire delegation in the House of Representatives, but especially Schiff, Pelosi and the House impeachment managers — have turned “Doing His Constitutionally-Mandated Job” into an… “Impeachable Offense.”

Morons. Or, if you prefer: Treasonous ba*tards!

There can be no more dastardly attack on the U.S. Constitution than declaring that obstructing Congress is an impeachable offense, as opposed to what it truly is: a good thing.

Needless to say, the Democrats are in full deflection mode. Another tried and, sadly, true tactic of top Democrats is to do something horrible, and immediately accuse an opponent of doing the very same horrible thing. Thereby deflecting the attention of anyone in the moth-brained media who might be inclined to point out their crime. Note how they’re all aboutprotecting the Constitution” against a President who might be… impeding their power grab.

If only the Republicans, when they controlled the House, had been a whole lot more vigorous in their obstruction — their Constitutionally-mandated responsibility, I might add — of the power-mad Obama executive branch, when Obama was busily issuing obviously unconstitutional executive orders, siccing the IRS on Americans(1) trying to exercise their free speech rights, and more!

Still more to the point: It should be a good thing when Congress obstructs the President if he tries to grab too much power. This was why it was a very bad thing when the Republican House of Representatives refused to try — loudly — to block Obama’s power grabs. Remember: “I have a pen and a telephone“?(2)

And, let’s face it, obstruction is exactly what this Congress is trying to do. Why, then, do they lie about it? Why do they pretend that they’re such courageous defenders of the Constitution, when they’re simply engaged in stalling, stonewalling, monkey-wrench tossing, obfuscation, speed-bumping and pettifoggery? Or, if you will: obstruction.

Congressional Democrats are doing everything but being honest about what they’re doing. They’re lying, defrauding, deceiving, fabricating “crimes,” pretending they’re shocked — shocked! — that Trump is simply taking advantage of what their guy Obama did: agglomerate yuuge powers to the Presidency that Congress did nothing to prevent when it should have.

So then, why don’t the Democrats just admit what they’re doing? Answer: Simple (in bullet points):

  • Democrats admit nothing… ever.
  • They’re constitutionally incapable of telling the truth, because they needed a constant barrage of lies to achieve the positions of power they currently occupy. An edifice constructed of lies requires ever more lies to keep it erect.
  • Hence, even when it would be advantageous for them to tell the truth, they don’t. They can’t.
  • They’ve lost the ability to tell the truth because they haven’t had the inclination in decades. Due to lack of practice, they probably no longer even know how to tell the truth.(3)
  • Furthermore, for people like Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, lying and deception have worked so well. It’s similar to why the great Ted Williams never tried to hit to the opposite field.
  • Bottom Line: If leading Democrats were to to tell the truth, it’d be like abandoning the one that brung ’em to the dance.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) There are extenuating circumstances.It was true that at that time any time anyone said anything even slightly critical of the Obama Administration, the media immediately tarred that person as, yep, a racist. Obama had more protection against criticism than any President in history. And took full advantage of it, becoming probably the most corrupt President, presiding over the most corrupt Administration in American history. At least in recent American history. Nixon wasn’t even close.

(2) Deadly serious question: How on earth is no one in jail for that one? Nixon was about to be impeached, before he resigned, merely because he mused about what Obama actually did!

(3) During the Clinton years, many were mystified. “Why,” they’d ask, “would Clinton lie about [fill in transparently unnecessary lie here] when the truth would have served him so much better?” Few, if any, then answered the question by suggesting that Clinton — the incredibly smooth, practiced, convincing, persuasive con artist that he is — might have lost the ability, through disuse, to be honest, having spent so much of his life prospering by the lie.

5 thoughts on “• “Obstruction of Congress?” Huh?!?

  1. Well, first off.. how do you know what the Founders were thinking? At best we guess or surmise from The Federalist Papers.. or.. rely on the interpretation of SCOTUS, and hope they make sense.
    Second off.. “obstruction” is NOT synonymous with “checks & balances”. Obstruction is the attempt to place a barrier in the way of investigating to determine facts from which decisions can be made in order to validate questions in disputes between the levels of government, thus carrying out the checks & balances process.
    In your apparent Trumpian quest to invalidate a legitimate Constitutional process you are trying to fabricate your own obstruction to protect your Dear Leader.

  2. Hi, Doug! First off: why would you be so insulting to me, when I’ve never been anything but cordial and polite to you? Second…

    I’d never pretend to be able to read minds. However… Yes, “Checks and Balances” does mean “obstruction.” The words imply “getting in the way,” “blocking,” “impeding,” “standing athwart,” “preventing,” “protecting from,” “defending from,” “hobbling,” “not giving free reign to,” and a thousand other ways of saying it… including, of course: “obstruction.” This is not, really, debatable. I hope you see that.

    This isn’t mind-reading, this is plain English. If the House Democrats meant something other than “obstruction,” then they should have used more precise language. They didn’t. Here’s what Merriam-Webster lists as synonyms for “obstruction”:

    balk, bar, block, chain, clog, cramp, crimp, deterrent, drag, embarrassment, encumbrance, fetter, handicap, hindrance, holdback, hurdle, impediment, inhibition, interference, let, manacle, obstacle, shackles, stop, stumbling block, trammel

    Okay… sounds like what the President is supposed to do to Congress, and vice versa.

    When you say that “Obstruction is the attempt to place a barrier in the way of investigating to determine facts from which decisions can be made in order to validate questions in disputes between the levels of government” you’re simply choosing to agree with the House Democrats’ definition of obstruction. That instantly invalidates your argument. It’s like saying: “My argument is correct, because here’s what I’ve said in support of it.”

    Next, in the same vein, where would you get the idea that “obstruction” doesn’t mean a back and forth of at least more than one iteration?!? it’s like pretending that if I get the serve back I won the point in ping pong! (I’m a world-class ping pong player in my age bracket). No, I have to get the rest of the shots back too, and then I have to get the final shot back! An apt analogy, I hope you’ll agree, for the back and forth of a judicial or legislative tussle.

    Actual obstruction constitutes, well, obstruction… not “Waaah! You didn’t help me destroy you, I’m going to impeach you!” That’s exactly what the House charge of “Obstruction of Congress” says.

    Okay, that was easy enough… let’s look at the rest.

    Next: please summarize for me the “legitimate Constitutional process” that Trump supposedly “obstructed,” as well as, why it was wrong (ie impeachable) to obstruct that process, and where is it written in any publication that the defendant (Trump) is required to cooperate in his own prosecution. Seriously, Doug… this is not the Soviet Union. Read the histories of Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Tomsky and so many others, who were forced to “confess” and to aid in the kangaroo courts that would eventually murder them by firing squad. Then tell me where what you have proposed is any different.

    In Western common law, no defendent is ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, not even once, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, nowhere, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, not ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, at no time, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, not ever required to participate in his own prosecution.

    It’s kind of fundamental to western law… and to basic human decency.

    In a related vein, let’s change it up a little bit. What do you think of the following hypothesis (not mine, I’m quoting): “Generations of the Left demonizing the Right as Nazis, fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., (you know the litany) engendered an inevitable response in the form of someone who would punch back just as hard, or harder: Trump.

    Oh, and I will allow you to apologize for the “Trumpian” and “Dear Leader” slurs. I’m not a leftist; I don’t judge you by one or two ignorant things.

    Best,

    — x

    1. Declaring ignorance is judgmental. If you’re not a Leftist (and I didn’t think you were.. hence my use of the terms I used… nor do I really know who I am ever addressing in here because someone told me once that authors in here can shift like the seasons) that’s fine with me. I’m not either. In the end, so what. Or.. is that where you begin?

      I honestly would entertain learning a bit more about you. I think you wanna share that as well.

  3. Lol! I like the “shift like the seasons” image. The reality is much more mundane than that, though. We’re a stable of a dozen or so writers and commentators who all write under one name to preserve anonymity.

    We do that because all of us have “day jobs” that would be jeopardized if anyone found out that we’re really Conservatives.

    Since you asked, here’s a bit of a rundown of our intrepid little group:

    You already know several of our names in vastly different contexts. Several of us are black, several of us are women, some are both, one of us is a Pacific Islander. Only three of us are what you might call “white.” The rest of us are non-white.

    All of us are Americans. All of us are polyglot. Between us we have quite a few advanced degrees, have written more than a hundred books, have won PGA golf tournaments, including several majors, have played (some still play) a total of four professional sports (baseball, golf, basketball, table tennis), have appeared and continue to appear, on television, in radio and in a wide array of media venues — newspapers, magazines, podcasts, tv series, movies, blogs/vlogs, commercials, commentary, news…

    Some of us are academics, some of us are scientists. All of us are performers of one sort or another. Some of us continue to serve in the U.S. government, some of us have held elective office, and one of us is a high government official. 🙂 That one, obviously, requires anonymity.

    We have a wide assortment of hobbies and interests, and all of us have a deep love for America, the greatest, most generous, freest, kindest, biggest-hearted, rip-roarin’-est, rootinest, tootinest country in the history of the world. And we hate to see the Left doing their level best to transform it into a third-world hellhole. 🙂

    You might be dealing with any one of us at any given time. However, we do have an editor who takes everything we write and “smooths it out,” removing many regionalisms and colloquialisms that might make for less widely understandable reading.

    In this blog, we’re not widely read numbers-wise, but we are widely read internationally. We’re required reading in at least half a dozen universities (again in stealth), as well as at the White House. One of our posts has made it into a leading American university textbook. Our “xPraetorius curve” is being taught (under a different name, obviously) in numerous universities both here and abroad. Yes, we’re pleased to observe all those things coming from a little blog that we resolutely intended to keep under the radar. In fact, if we were to become much more widely known, that would jeopardize our anonymity, and we would close our doors and start anew elsewhere.

    Amusingly, there have been numerous attempts to determine who we are and from where we post our content. We assure our secrecy and anonymity with a combination of high-tech means, like the skillful use of VPN technology, and air-gapped, securely encrypted networks, as well as very, very low-tech, untraceable tools and systems.

    Interestingly this system was developed by one of our Soviet specialists, who has a deep knowledge of the Samizdat techniques and systems that Soviet dissidents used in order to conceal their writings from the former Soviet government. Only a concerted effort by people with very powerful means at their disposal would be able to determine who we are.

    Does that give a picture?

    Best,

    — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s